The Political Chase

Pelosi Press Conference

FYI - Nancy Pelosi will hold a press conference at approximately 11:15 A.M. ET today. The briefing will be broadcast live on C-SPAN3. I haven’t seen anything indicating so, but it may also be carried on the cable news networks (e.g., MSNBC, CNN)

White House revises Iraq strategy, begins political war with Democrats

Based on remarks White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made moments ago, President Bush is turning the current objective in Iraq on its head and redefined victory (tenth version based on my recollection) yet again. Furthermore, the White House initiated a war of words against the Democrats rather than seeking collegial solutions for the catastrophe in Iraq.

When asked to respond to Nancy Pelosi’s comment that “General Petraeus’s strategy amounts to an endless strategy for war — a war without end,” Snow gave a new definition for victory - “”Helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves.” (Ed. note: quoted remarks for Pelosi are the reporters words, not necessarily Pelosi’s exact words.)
Indeed if you look closely at what Snow said, Pelosi’s comments are on target.

It appears the military strategy is no longer creating a secure environment so that Iraq’s political infrastructure can achieve reconciliation and function. Instead, according to Snow’s remarks, the strategy and objective goes much further.

Snow referenced several “developmental components including: (1) provincial reconstruction teams; (2) seeks greater cooperation and interaction with regional powers and regional allies; and, (3) is a strategy that has expectations in terms of what the neighbors out to do including Iran and Syria.”

Snow also made it clear there are no time parameters.

Taking shots at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Snow accused Pelosi of attempting to “create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place as a result of the surge in recent months and the fact that General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy has worked in ways that has surprised even the U.S. in terms of the development of strong grass roots of Iraqi action against al-Qaeda…and against other forces.”

I will provide a reference link or video later when it becomes available.

TPC Roundup - Pig in a Poke

Headlines:

• Bush will announce troop reductions by next summer
• Schumer against White House selecting Ted Olson for AG
• Speaker Pelosi says Bush’s troop plan is an insult
• U.S. officials in secret talks with Sadr army since early 2006
• Not looking good for Ted Stevens - implicated in FBI video
• Vitter’s prostitution woes mount
• Judge to hear Craig’s plea for withdrawal

TPC Most Popular (updated 12:35 PM EDT):

The Bush Administration: A Perpetual Cabal

Disagreement between Petraeus and Fallon on Iraq

Summed up in 25 words or less

The significance of Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow

Rhetoric and nothing else

Iraq

• President Bush will reportedly try to sell Americans yet another farce Thursday evening by announcing that “he understands American’s deep concerns and therefore plans to reduce the American troops presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer.” First, it is not a guaranteed reduction in troops since Bush is insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that events could change the plan. Second, the troops were already scheduled to come out based on tour limits; Bush will simply not replace those ending their tour of duty. Third, the military overall cannot maintain the current troop levels in Iraq and continue to provide adequate protection elsewhere. If the military does not get a mass infusion of trained soldiers by next summer, the military will break; therefore, Bush has no choice but to withdraw the troops and place them elsewhere.
• General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Croker “conceded Tuesday that the Bush administration’s overall strategy in Iraq would remain largely unchanged after the temporary increase in American forces is over next summer, and made clear their view that the United States would need a major troop presence in Iraq for years to come.” the New York Times reports.
• “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Bush appears poised to bring the country back to where it was before the election that put Democrats in control of Congress — with 130,000 troops in Iraq. ‘Please. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq,’” the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
• In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, General David Petraeus said he “did not know” if victory in Iraq would make America safe.”
• “U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq,” the LA Times reports. “The secret dialogue has been going on since at least early 2006, but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week — with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital’s most dangerous sections.”

Replacing Alberto Gonzales

• The White House is closing in on a nominee to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson considered one of the leading candidates, administration and Congressional officials said Tuesday,” the New York Times reports.
• Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, commenting on the potential nominee said, “Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list. My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”

Scandals

• “Analysts said the political future of U.S. Sen. David Vitter again was thrown into question Tuesday after a former New Orleans prostitute vouched in person that the senator was one of her former clients,” the Houston Chronicle reports. This is the second allegation made against Vitter, who previously admitted he was a client of the now infamous DC Madam.
• “During a secret meeting to discuss what prosecutors say was a dirty deal to keep Alaska oil taxes low, two oil contractors said they had a powerful ally coming to town who could help stress the industry’s importance: Sen. Ted Stevens,” USA Today reports. “The FBI played a videotape of the 2006 meeting Tuesday in a corruption trial against former Alaska House Speaker Pete Kott, who is accused of taking gifts and favors in exchange for supporting oil interests.”
• “Sen. Larry E. Craig’s request to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting will be heard Sept. 26, just four days before the Idaho Republican has said he will step down from his Senate seat,” AP reports. “A spokesman for Craig has said the senator is unlikely to try to finish his third term unless a court moves quickly to overturn his conviction.”

BAAAAAAAD Leadership

The ACLU has an excellent new ad justifiably berating the Democratic leadership for acquiescing to George Bush’s every whim and specifically for eviscerating FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) simply because Members of Congress did not want to miss a single day at the beach.

Download (.pdf)

The print under “B A A A A A A A D” says:

When Americans elected a new Congress in 2006, we expected the Congressional leadership to stand up to George Bush, to fight to restore the civil liberties we had lost in the previous six years. Instead, this summer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi caved to yet another Bush assault on our freedoms. They’ve enabled a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that unbelievably gives new powers to Attorney General Gonzales, new powers to eavesdrop on American citizens without any meaningful court or Congressional oversight. We don’t need sheep protecting the Bill of Rights. We need lions.

It’s time for Congress to stop following and start leading.

Our constitutional freedoms are at stake.

Reid and Pelosi Write Bush on Surge Failure

Apparently Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were not pleased with the facts of Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey’s testimony yesterday either. They fired a letter off to Bush telling him in no uncertain terms his strategy is a failure.

In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed. That is also the view of a substantial majority of the American people. Rather than respond with a new plan immediately, Administration officials as well as Republican congressional leaders suggest that your flawed Iraq strategy not be revisited until September when General Petraeus is scheduled to provide Congress with a progress report on Iraq. The only step you have proposed in the interim is to divest your National Security Advisor of control over Iraq policy and create a “war czar” position, an act that has only served to create further confusion and concerns about your plans for Iraq.

The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act now. That is why we intend to again send you legislation that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end. These are goals consistent with both the national security of the United States and the will of the American people. We respectfully request that you reconsider your previous opposition to proposals that would accomplish these goals, and work with us to give our troops a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. We look forward to discussing these issues with you when we meet at the White House later today to discuss stability in the Middle East. Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Read the entire letter here.

Liz Cheney’s Bad Behavior

Liz Cheney, the daughter of you-know-who, joins the hypocritical crowd criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi - all Pelosi-bashing, no bashing of Republicans. Public discourse serves the common good, but only when the discourse is fair, balanced, logical and has a worthwile objective.

For every reason Ms. Cheney denounces Speaker Pelosi, an opposing view, amongst other things, can legitimately be brought forth, which brings me to my point. Ms. Cheney failed to mention the Republican part of the Pelosi delegation, nor did she mention the GOP delegation that immediately preceded Speaker Pelosi’s. It seems her father’s countless failures would serve as a teaching aid; however reality shows it has not.

Furthermore, Ms. Cheney is obviously standing on her head. Citing a litany of incidents, Ms. Cheney criticizes Speaker Pelosi for saying, “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” What Ms. Cheney, and those that join her circle of critics, fail to realize is the road to Damascus theoretically can be a road to peace; it is the road out of Damascus that is not peaceful as illustrated in Ms. Cheney’s critique.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and now obviously little Cheney operate on a “garbage in, garbage out” foreign policy. The road out of Damascus will never lead to peace until peaceful behavior and examples make their way into Damascus. People are a product of their enviornment and will remain so until influenced by external factors. Isolation does not facilitate influence.

Sticking your tongue out, little girl, does nothing but make the other child madder.

Bashing Pelosi - More White House Dirty Tricks?

President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert

I can’t prove it by referencing a post, but I suspected the White House was directly involved in Israel’s prime minister’s rapid fire statement in response to Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with Syria’s president Bashar Assad. Pelosi, in summary, told Assad that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was willing to discuss peace, and added the qualifications Olmert based his statement on. If you will remember, the Israeli prime minister’s office issued a statement discounting, at best, Pelosi’s statement to Assad. Of course that was accompanied by the blistering rhetoric from Dick Cheney and George Bush. Well, my suspicions may have been correct.

I would love to say I told you so and back it up with solid evidence, but the closest I can come to it is the last paragraph in this post. To the issue…Josh Marshall has pulled together a rather complex series of events that, in summary, supports my suspicions. I just knew Dubya picked up the phone, called Olmert, and pressured him to discredit Pelosi as soon as he (W.) heard about the content of Pelosi and Assad’s meeting.

Josh did a good job of pulling the pieces together. Read the details.

Technorati tags: Nancy+Pelosi, Syria, Assad, Olmert, White+House, George+Bush

Specter smacks Lieberman around on CNN

Wolf Blitzer asks Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to comment on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria. You have to watch this - Lieberman sounds like Cheney and Specter sounds like a tenured Democrat.

When Lieberman started claiming the Bush administration has been negotiating with Syria, Specter unloads on Lieberman and all but calls Lieberman a liar. Also, notice Specter at the end; he gives Lieberman an “I just kicked your butt” goodbye.

Jon Kyl Misleading on ABC’s This Week

On ABC’s “This Week” today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) referenced the Iraq Study Group Report as a source for criticizing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria. At best, Kyl twisted the intent and overall meaning of the Iraq Study Group Report and at worst, deceitfully and incorrectly quoted the report in an attempt to justify his criticism of Pelosi.

Paraphrasing, Kyl said Pelosi should not have gone because the Iraq Study Group Report says the President or the Secretary of State should have approved her trip. Not true. But, before jumping to the video, I want to point out a few excerpts from the Iraq Study Group Report.

First, the report says the U.S. should initiate a specific group, The Iraq International Support Group, to facilitate and address diplomatic discussion and issues.

In addition to supporting stability in Iraq, a comprehensive diplomatic offensive—the New diplomatic Offensive—should address these key regional issues. By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America’s global image. (p. 44, par. 1)

…

RECOMMENDATION 1: The United States, working with the Iraqi government, should launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region. This new diplomatic offensive should be launched before December 31, 2006. (p. 45, par. 3)

Like everything else in the report, George Bush dismissed the No. 1 recommendation of the group. The report emphasizes the importance of the diplomatic group and the consequences of not implementing it. Furthermore, the report does not say U.S. participation is limited exclusively to George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice, or the executive branch for that matter; quite the contrary:

2. The Iraq Interntional Support Group

This new diplomatic offensive cannot be successful unless it includes the active participation of those countries that have a critical stake in preventing Iraq from falling into chaos. To encourage their participation, the United States should immediately seek the creation of the Iraq International Support Group. (pp. 46-47)

…

Externally [to Iraq], the United States should immediately begin to employ all elements of American power to construct a regional mechanism that can support, rather than retard, progress in Iraq. (p. 49, par. 3). (Emphasis  added.)

As you will see, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) also appeared on the show. Now, play close attention Kyl when he quotes the Iraq Study Group Report.

Kyl’s statements are clear, Bush and Condoleezza Rice have ultimate and sole authority according to the report. Not true. Furthermore, when Bush has not even implemented the recommendations, how can Sen. Jon Kyl apply the rules defined for something that was never created?

If — that’s a big if — the president had done what the report said, then he or Rice should lead, which is substantially different than unilateral, authority.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized at the level of foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President, should lead the U.S. effort. That effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances require. (p. 50, par. 1) (Emphasis added.)

Kyl was wrong. You cannot apply rules defined to an entity that does not exist. And, if it did, the report is clear the Bush Doctrine - my way, and only my way - do not apply.

The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria involve difficult issues that must be resolved. Diplomatic talks should be extensive and substantive, and they will require a balancing of interests. (p.50, par. 5) (Emphasis added.)

My primary point is, Jon Kyl, George Bush and whomever else can apply the rules of the report, if and only if they first implement the recommendations. No implemenation; no rules to apply.

The same applies when Kyl starts yapping about discussion vs. negotiation. First, he’s twisting things again, and if you noticed, Levin shut him down on the negotiation statements.

If Bush is not going to do anything to resolve this catastrophe, then somebody else will. The people have mandated that it be done.

Washington Post Smacked by Columnist

I mentioned earlier that Hardball’s Chris Matthews questioned Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post about the Post’s editorial yesterday, which was highly critical of Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to the Middle East. Robinson distanced himself from the editorial board and said he disagreed with their view.

I’m glad to see Robinson take a stand and blister his bosses. Obviously he would not be a candidate for Bush’s White Hose Press Secretary.

This is a partial transcript of the video. A complete transcript of the video (not the entire show) is available here.

MATTHEWS: Eugene, it‘s great to have you here on behalf of “The Washington Post.”

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Why is “The Washington Post” trashing Nancy Pelosi for doing basically what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton said to do, engage the neighborhood over there in the Middle East?

EUGENE ROBINSON, “WASHINGTON POST”: I‘m pleased to be able to tell you I‘m not a member of editorial board, and you know, I write my columns, they do their editorials. I can tell you where I stand on it, which is that…

MATTHEWS: First of all, let‘s hear what your newspaper, the mother ship, has to say on this topic. This is the editorial page. I‘m quoting from it. You know, this used to be a liberal newspaper, “The Washington Post,” back in Nixon‘s day with Ben Bradlee and other back there, Meg Greenfield, the editorial page editor. It is not a liberal paper. It‘s a hawkish paper.

Quote, “We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush‘s military strategy and regional diplomacy, but Ms. Pelosi‘s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it‘s foolish.”

Pretty strong, Gene.

ROBINSON: Pretty strong. You know…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: … they should tell us what they really think. You know, I mean, I think that she‘s right on the substance. She‘s clearly right on the substance. Of course, we should be talking to Syria. And you know, this policy that if we don‘t like a regime, you know, we pretend—you know, we cover our ears and we don‘t talk to them, is absurd. If Syria can be helpful or is being harmful in Iraq, in Lebanon, whatever, we should talk to them. You know, I think there‘s a question about the style and the timing. I think…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … time to talk to Bashar Assad and…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: I kind of wish—I think there‘s a lot of value in sending the message to Syria and the world that Americans and the new Congress have a different idea of how to conduct diplomacy and foreign policy from the Bush idea. I think it‘s useful message. I wish…

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s—that‘s…

ROBINSON: … she had sent, you know, Jim Clyburn or Steny Hoyer or somebody to do it…

(CROSSTALK)

Bush should use his argument against Pelosi to catch bin Laden

We all know the disdain President Bush has for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is particularly heightened with her trip to Syria. Bush has the right to express his opinions; however a significant element of his arguments raise the debate to a higher level and in fact illustrates he does not adhere to his own foreign policy on terrorism. Bush violating his own policy allows Osama bin Laden to remain free.

According to Dubya, states that support or harbor terrorists are enemies of the U.S. and he vows to “fight” them. We’ve heard that ad nauseam. In a New York Times article on Bush’s criticism of Pelosi, the Times reports:

The Bush administration has resisted the idea of opening such a dialogue, citing its view that the country is a state sponsor of terrorism. It accuses the Syrian government of providing militants with safe passage into Iraq and of interfering in Lebanon’s politics after its army was forced to leave there in 2005. Syria denies the accusations.

For Bush, one size does not fit all; with respect to Pakistan and frequently Saudi Arabia, he violates his own policy. That violation allows America’s greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden, to remain free.

It is a well known fact that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are in the northwest region of Pakistan, but what’s being done about it? Zip. Yes, Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf played a significant role initially in the U.S. retaliation against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but don’t we now have a double-standard in place that is highly contradictory to Bush’s policy and our national security? Why, at this point in time, does Bush not enforce his policy and seek with all vigor America’s greatest enemy?

Musharraf is in a precarious situation; he is pulled in multiple directions, even at the risk of his own life, but what tilts the balance in his favor at the risk of our national security?

I will dial down the rhetoric and make my point. Bush cannot credibly employ his argument against Pelosi in her efforts to bring peace, when he does not enforce his own policy, which allows Public Enemy No. 1 to wander freely.

The reality of the situation is, Bush is trying to enforce a Karl Rove policy - no Democrat shall be allowed to succeed at anything, especially at the expense of a Republican president, even if the president is a delusional idiot.

The hyprocisy and arrogance of George Bush

King George’s statements yesterday about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her trip to Syria are nothing short of hypocritical and slanderous. There is always a double standard when it comes to W.’s policies and opinions, so it is rather stupid for me to expect anything different. Now that we’ve properly established my stupidity, what is King George’s excuse? Yesterday W. condemned Pelosi and had the chutzpah to literally accuse her of encouraging terrorism because she visited Syria; however when Republican members of Congress do the same thing, we don’t hear a peep from His Royal Highness.

Republican Representatives Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus Sunday, but that’s okay. So, pray tell, what is W.’s acceptable excuse for getting his stinger out of joint over Pelosi’s trip?

Furthermore, contrary to King George’s pronouncement, he doesn’t own the foreign policy market. The Constitution specifically divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress. Maybe Laura should wordsmith that part of the Constitution into a bedtime story and read it to W. over a warm glass of milk.

Nancy Pelosi Lets Bush Have It

Hell hath no fury like a Speaker of the House scorned. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has obviously had enough of George Bush promising to veto everything that comes out of Congress. If W. thought Pelosi was too timid to challenge him, all he needs to do is read her blog entry today…”look it up on the Internets or the Google, see…”

President Bush’s Iraq policies weaken our military’s readiness, dishonor our nation’s promises to our veterans, and fail to hold the Iraqi government accountable for overdue reforms.

By threatening to veto the House’s military funding bill, the President is walking away from his promise to the American people. The President has vowed to veto a bill that contains his own reform benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government, our Defense Department’s own standards for troop readiness, and America’s promise to our veterans.

With his veto threat, the President offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.

The House of Representatives will soon have a chance to choose a new direction for the American people. The bill the President dismisses out of hand will measure the Iraqi government’s actions by the standards Mr. Bush himself set, conforms deployment of our troops to existing military standards for readiness, and provides badly needed help to an overburdened military and veterans’ medical system wracked by scandal.

Good for you Nancy Pelosi! Give that man hell.

Frankly, I think she’s just getting started. She’s been in this game a lot longer than Bush has and she has the support of the vast majority of the American people. W. doesn’t.

The Gavel

Speaker Pelosi has started a blog. Read The Gavel here.

White House defends Pelosi airplane debate

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been getting flack from Republicans and to some extent the Department of Defense (alleged retribution) about the type of plane the Air Force will use to transport Pelosi between Washington and her residence in California.

Unbelievably, Tony Snow stepped in and said the GOP cry babies should shut up.

The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

That may be the beginning and the end of bipartisanship from the Bush White House.

Briefly, for those of you that haven’t heard about Pelosi’s heinous transgression (if you listen to Republican rhetoric), the Speaker of the House is provided security during transportation; a policy established after 9/11 since the Speaker is second in succession to the President. Dennis Hastert was flown to Illinois, which can easily be done non-stop, but to get Pelosi to California non-stop flight requires a larger plane. Refueling presents a problem - I don’t know if it is security related or personal (Pelosi could get a commercial non-stop, but no security)…doesn’t matter.