Robert Scheer Remembers bill clinton . . . .

In honour of bill clinton's latest book tour, this video of Robert Scheer recalling the "rest of the story" at an Occupy LA event sheds a bit more light on the clinton legacy:



Still wanna buy the book ? ? ? ?

H/T Tiana

"The Party of the People . . . ."

Is not that "people friendly" according to this piece from SocialistWorker.org.

A snippet follows, but check out the entire piece here:

More generally, the truth is this: Democratic mayors may talk about how they sympathize with the Occupy movement. They may even try to speak in its name, as Quan has. But their office requires them to keep order and protect the interests of the 1 percent--and so they will turn to repression to try to stop the struggle from disrupting business as usual.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE SAME truth applies further up the chain, in the White House of Barack Obama, the first African American president of the U.S.

Where was Barack Obama, who claimed to understand the "broad-based frustration" of the movement, when Occupy activists in Oakland were reclaiming Oscar Grant Plaza after enduring vicious police violence 24 hours earlier? Answer: He was across the Bay at a $5,000-a-plate fundraiser for his presidential campaign.

Quelle surprise, eh ? ? ? ?

The Road to Armageddon . . . .

This morning I completed "The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada" by Marci McDonald.

Her book is highly recommended as a wake-up call (I hope it's not too late!) for Canadians to avoid the mess religious zealots have ingrained in the US political system. With the short period of time harperco has been in office, the infiltration of "faith-based" radicals is astounding. Some excerpts follow.





On the "Change you can believe in" president:

On both sides of the border, Obama's election was hailed as a tipping point, the moment when a majority of Americans finally revolted against years of overheated piety in favour of an appeal for spiritual tolerance. . . . .

. . . . As it turned out, those elegies were premature. Rather than banishing Bush's faith-based bureaucracy and rhetoric from the White House, Obama has actually outdone him in public religiosity. From the invocation by celebrity pastor Rick Warren at the inauguration to his own address to the Islamic world enunciating his belief in Jesus Christ, he has “embraced faith in a more visible way than any other president in recent memory,” according to Dan Gilgoff, the religion writer for U.S. News & World Report. While Bush was careful, even covert, in his scriptural allusions, Obama opened major presidential rallies with prayers solicited from local pastors, and mentioned Jesus with a frequency his predecessor would never have dared. Instead of scrapping Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, he expanded its mission and named a new twenty-five-member Faith Advisory Council, prompting Gilgoff, the founder of Beliefnet's “God-o-meter,” to dub him the “faithiest” president in American history.

On the "feel-good" methods of the snake oil salesmen:

Waving their bright flags on the lawns of the Parliament Buildings, extolling the country's Christian roots to a compelling soft-rock beat, they might seem to offer a refreshing recipe for morality and national pride, but their agenda – while outwardly inclusive and multi-racial – is ultimately exclusionary. In their idealized Christian nation, non-believers – atheists, non-Christians and even Christian secularists – have no place, and those in violation of biblical law, notably homosexuals and adulterers, would merit severe punishment and the sort of shunning that once characterized a society where suspected witches were burned. Theirs is a dark and dangerous vision, one that brooks no dissent and requires the dismantling of key democratic institutions. A preview is on display south of the border, where decades of religious-right triumphs have left a nation bitterly splintered along lines of faith and ideology, trapped in the hysteria of overcharged rhetoric and resentment.

In her final words, a warning: (Emphasis mine.)

On a visit to Canada in late 2006, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges was alarmed to discover that, in a country he had always regarded as “a bit saner” than the U.S., Harper was putting out the welcome mat for the religious right. The son of a Presbyterian minister and a; graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Hedges warned Canadians against following the lead of those Americans who “stood sleepily by as Pat Robertson and other religious bigots hijacked the Republican Party and moved into the legislative and executive branches of government.” As he made clear, the growth of the U.S. Christian right was a long and insidious process, but one that could only have happened because the media and political moderates watched in passive disbelief or wishful denial. In tracing the influence of that emergent force in this country, I have attempted to sound a wake-up call, but, in the end, it is up to Canadian voters to write the next chapter. Only they can decide the kind of country in which they want to live.

For lack of a better term, Marci, "amen" . . . .

IP Nails It . . . .

Idealistic Pragmatist has the definitive post on the US dems, health care "reform" and the sorry condition of the Excited States here.

Go, read and hope the situation doesn't creep across the 49th . . . .

Hollow "Victory," Mr. President . . . .

Check out Matt Taibbi and Robert Kuttner on Bill Moyers Journal Friday night.

They explain the clusterf_ck in Washington for what it is: a sell-out to Corporate America. What a surprise, eh?

It's about 30 minutes, but well worth it. The dems and the "o-team" need to pay attention. S'pecially the comments regarding rahm.

I knew that guy was gonna be trouble, and guess what ? ? ? ?

Big Surprise. Not . . . .

Huffpo reports:

Rahm Emanuel Personally Pressed Reid To Cut Deal With Lieberman: Sources

Updated: 12-14-09 07:24 PM

Rahm Emanuel visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his Capitol office on Sunday evening and personally urged him to cut a deal with recalcitrant Sen. Joe Lieberman, two Democratic sources familiar with the situation told the Huffington Post.

Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, has long been identified as leading a faction of White House advisers who have been pushing the Senate simply to pass any health care bill, no matter how weak.

His direct message to Reid (D-Nev.), according to a source close to the negotiations: "Get it done. Just get it done."

Politico reported Monday morning that the White House had pressed Reid to cut the deal after Lieberman (I-Conn) insisted the Senate drop a provision, which Lieberman himself has long favored, to allow those 55-64 to buy in to Medicare. Lieberman is threatening to join a Republican filibuster of the bill if the provision isn't dropped.

The White House denied the report. "The report is inaccurate. The White House is not pushing Senator Reid in any direction. We are working hand in hand with the Senate Leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible," White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer wrote in an e-mail to the Plum Line.

The report, however, according to the two sources, was entirely accurate. "We're long past time for these kinds of games," one source said.

It would be easy to put all the blame for this on the sleaze-bag emanuel, but remember who hired his a_s.

No bill would be a better than the watered-down version they're heading toward. All they have now is a forced payment to insurance companies with nothing in return.

$$$ win over people once again . . . .

Inching Forward ? ? ? ?

At least Harry Reid hasn't erected a road block to a public option.

Per Newsweek this afternoon:

Reid's Public Option: Not Exactly A Shoo-in

Monday, October 26, 2009 4:15 PM
By Katie Connolly

It wasn't long ago when pundits were calling time of death on the public option. But today, in a move that seemed almost inconceivable back in August, Harry Reid has announced that the bill he plans to take to the Senate floor will contain a public option. His version will be an "opt-out" public plan, which allows states to prevent their residents from participating it. It's not a version that entirely satsifies progressives, who'd be happier with a robust, openly accessible plan. But it's a far cry from Max Baucus's plan, which relied on co-ops rather than a public plan to induce the competition President Obama so desires.

It's unclear why Reid decided on this model, over an opt-in model or a trigger, for example. It probably has something to do with pressure from the likes of Chuck Schumer, and assurances from folks like Jay Rockerfeller that liberals would support him. Reid also said at his press conference this afternoon that he has the backing of the White House, quashing rumors (for now....) that the Administration prefers a trigger option. But there are a few key people who don't appear to support the idea. First and foremost, Olympia Snowe, who's had almost unparalleled influence of the Senate bill so far. Without her, Reid needs every single one of his 60 votes and it's far from certain that Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson would support it.

You can watch Reid's presser here.

Now let's see if the White House and the rest of the dems step up to the plate and push for it.

Jury's still out on both at this point . . . .

M & M . . . .

Matt and Michael are getting a bit impatient.





Is there a "movement" stirring?








One can only hope . . . .

She's Not Happy . . . .

Methinks Hillary is not happy with the question . . . .

"Inclusive" Is One Thing. "Homophobic" Is Another . . . .

Damn, I wish Kucinich or Feingold would have had the proverbial "Snowball's Chance in Hell" of getting elected President . . . .

Goose, Gander, etc., etc., etc. . . . .

Per Reuters:

China spying on Olympics hotel guests: U.S. senator
Tue Jul 29, 2008 - By Richard Cowan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China has installed Internet-spying equipment in all the major hotel chains serving the 2008 Summer Olympics, a U.S. senator charged on Tuesday.

"The Chinese government has put in place a system to spy on and gather information about every guest at hotels where Olympic visitors are staying," said Sen. Sam Brownback.

The conservative Republican from Kansas, citing hotel documents he received, added that journalists, athletes' families and others attending the Olympics next month "will be subjected to invasive intelligence-gathering" by China's Public Security Bureau. He said the agency will be monitoring Internet communications at the hotels.

_______________


The senator called on China to reverse its policy, but said the hotels are advising guests that "your communications and Web site activity are not private" and that e-mails and Web sites being visited are accessible to local law enforcement.

Exactly how is this any different from the US government with the "new and improved" FISA legislation passed by a democratic Congress and signed by gwbush?

What a bunch of hypocrites . . . .

The More Things "Change You Can Believe In . . . . "

And exactly how is a democratic administration going to make things "Change You Can Believe In" any better over there?

Per McClatchy:

Obama talks tough about Iran during visit to Israel
Margaret Talev and Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers

July 23, 2008

SDEROT, Israel — Tough talk on Iran dominated Barack Obama's meetings Wednesday in Israel and the West Bank, as Israeli officials amplified their enemy's threat and the Democratic presidential hopeful declared that a "nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation."

Speaking at an afternoon news conference in Sderot, a city near the Gaza Strip that's long been a target for Palestinian rocket attacks, Obama said that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and that "America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people."

The Illinois senator warned pointedly that no options are "off the table" in confronting a nuclear threat from Iran, though he added that Iran should be offered "big carrots" as well as "big sticks."

Obama's aggressive rhetoric on Iran followed his emphasis earlier this week on his plan to send more U.S. troops to fight terrorism in Afghanistan should he defeat Republican John McCain in November. Obama also has made clear that he remains committed to withdrawing combat troops from Iraq over 16 months, and that he still sees merit in talking to enemy nations including Iran. But his rhetoric has taken on a more militaristic tone in recent days than was typical in his primary election campaign.

_______________


Obama did, however, weigh in on another contentious issue — saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. He added that whether it should be all under Israeli control or divided with Palestinians should be settled by negotiation, and that it's not up to the United States to determine.

Obama's general election rival, Republican John McCain, who visited Israel earlier this year, also visited Sderot, but unlike Obama, McCain did not meet with the Palestinians.

While Obama leads McCain in national polls back home, polls show that he may not be able to count on as wide a majority of Jewish supporters as is typical for Democrats. Polls also indicate that Israelis favor McCain over Obama on issues of Israel's security.

No matter who gets elected in the US this fall any change in the Mideast situation will be minimal. There are way too many monied interests with major fingers in that pie. It's doubtful the major defense contractors will allow a substantial deviation in the war machine's juggernaut toward corporate profits.

Slogans are one thing, concrete results are quite another - Witness Mr. Obama's "change" on FISA legislation. His refusal to stand up for the 4th Amendment and protect The Constitution as he swore he would is a major disappointment for someone who aspires to be the leader of the US.

The difference between the repugs and the dems:

Pocket "Change You Can Believe In . . . ."

Votes Are In . . . .

And, as expected, bush gets the FISA bill he wanted.

democratic red votes below are the "Good Ones".

democratic blue votes below are the "bush Enablers".

republican votes are in black and they all voted as expected.





U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number:	168	Vote Date:	July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )
Measure Title:	A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	69
	NAYs	28
	Not Voting	3

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Note especially the large blue vote. Disappointing, isn't it?

Again, remind me why the democrats should get my vote.

Somehow, I'm not clear on that . . . .



UPDATE: At least my favourite organization - the ACLU - is still on the job.

Good job!

Dems Fold on FISA . . . .

Nicolle Belle, John Amato and the crew at Crooks and Liars have been warning about Hoyer's behind-the-scenes backstabbing on FISA.

Today the knife was twisted.


From Congressional Quarterly:

House Passes Overhaul of Electronic Surveillance Rules

The House Friday passed an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules stemming from a bipartisan compromise that left Democrats divided.

The legislation, which would almost certainly lead to the dismissal of lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of aiding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program, won the support of 105 Democrats and 188 Republicans to pass by a margin of 293-129.

Senators agreed to place the bill on the calendar for next week and could clear it as early as Monday, delivering to President Bush legislation that gives him much of what he wants but with some restrictions he hoped to avoid. He placed a priority on the lawsuits’ dismissal, and on getting executive branch authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign targets, even when they are communicating with people in the United States.

House members who voted against the bill said its expansion of executive branch surveillance powers would gut Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“This bill scares me to death,” said Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif.

Supporters, on the other hand, said it was an improvement over a Senate-passed, White House-backed bill, which contained less court and congressional oversight. Some conservative Democrats have been pressing House leaders to take up that legislation all year long, and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said this week their support for that bill forced Democratic negotiators into a reluctant compromise.

“It’s not a happy occasion, but it’s the work we have to do,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. She said the debate on the legislation was “valuable for making the bill better if not good enough but certainly preferable to the alternative we have.”

Republicans, including Bush himself, praised the legislation.

That last line sums it up pretty well.

Remind me again why someone should vote for a democrat vs. a reguglican ? ? ? ?

Surprise! House dems Grow Spine . . . .

Well, it's a start, anyway.

From Reuter's today:

House passes spy bill and rejects phone immunity
Fri Mar 14, 2008 - By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defied President George W. Bush on Friday and passed an anti-terrorism spy bill that permits lawsuits against phone companies.

But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.

The battle over whether to shield companies has been a key reason why the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill to replace a law that expired last month that expanded U.S. authority to track enemy targets without a court order.

'Course, georgie will veto it, but what the hell.

At least the x-ray of the dems will show a shadow of a spine . . . .

This is Gonna Get Ugly . . . .

I've made an effort to keep out of the US primary season shenanigans.

Now that the dems have narrowed down the field, it appears that things will get even more ugly soon.

From AlterNet today, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor:

Will Hillary Clinton Spoil the Party?
By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on March 7, 2008

I'm thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats' two candidates. But I'm also becoming anxious at the prospect of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of them entering the White House in January of 2009.

Is Hillary Clinton’s willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had Hillary Clinton's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't.

This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.

_______________


I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign. (emphasis mine)

_______________


The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.

It will take some time for this circus to play out.

At this point, it would not be surprising if the dems blow what should be a shoe-in election and end up handing the executive branch to the repugs again.

The more things change, . . . .

Where Have All the Leaders Gone ? ? ? ?

Earlier I noted there was nothing to blog about today, and then I found this in yesterday's New York Times editorial page:

Editorial - September 21, 2007
In Search of a Congress

If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: “Nevermind.” The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

The Democrats don’t have, or can’t summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush’s increasingly narrow agenda.

_______________


We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.

















The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq’s chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush’s declared war on terrorism. Voters are capable of deciding whether Republicans are holding up the Senate out of principle or political tactics.

_______________


Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.

Congress is the first place for this kind of work. Right now, it seems like the last place it will happen.

(Emphasis above mine.)

That's our Congress: Workin' hard to accomplish zilch, nada, zero, absolutely nuthin' . . . .

Are the Dems Up to the Task ? ? ? ?

From AlterNet today:

Five Things for Dems to Keep in Mind When Gen. Petraeus Testifies on Iraq

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times - Posted on September 7, 2007

Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq -- as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that "if a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the front, it's criminal." So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

_______________

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate -- but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters -- political cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left .on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a "khaki election" in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can't make up their minds.

The other four points Krugman makes are here.

My bet is the Dems will fold - as usual - and bushco will continue the clusterf_ck in Iraq until they can hand it off to another administration to "lose".

The odds are in my favour.

Any takers ? ? ? ?