What Glenn Said.
Open Thread.
Make a new account
Sen. Mark Warner is hoping to form a bipartisan, bicameral post-Gang of Six group to pressure the already bipartisan, bicameral supercommittee to "go big or go home," his spokesman told POLITICO Thursday. [...] Warner told the group Wednesday that "$2.2 trillion is not enough" deficit reduction and warned that any new plan will likely include both more taxes and higher fees for services like the Tricare military health care plan. If you listen to our current leaders you'd assume that the real malefactors of wealth are the moochers who are ruining the country with their expensive illnesses and lavish old age pensions. The enemy, according to Democrats like Warner, are veterans who are unwilling to lay down in the tracks for the interests of Wall Street. digby
Sen. Mark Warner is hoping to form a bipartisan, bicameral post-Gang of Six group to pressure the already bipartisan, bicameral supercommittee to "go big or go home," his spokesman told POLITICO Thursday. [...] Warner told the group Wednesday that "$2.2 trillion is not enough" deficit reduction and warned that any new plan will likely include both more taxes and higher fees for services like the Tricare military health care plan.
If you listen to our current leaders you'd assume that the real malefactors of wealth are the moochers who are ruining the country with their expensive illnesses and lavish old age pensions. The enemy, according to Democrats like Warner, are veterans who are unwilling to lay down in the tracks for the interests of Wall Street. digby
"The truth is that you will see some increase in some of the Tricare co-payments," he said, according to the Virginian-Pilot. The cost of health care "is the fastest-growing part of the defense budget. ... I know some of you don't want to hear that ... but everything has to be on the table."
Medical spending! So is this what will be on the table for military cuts? The gross immorality of cutting veteran's health benefits seems little deterrent.
Is there not one person inside the Beltway who understands we can't afford to be the world's policeman? We never could afford it but you'd think by now it would be obvious. Parent
Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were `very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the `very excited' number has dipped below 50%. In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats `very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%. ... The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem. link
In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats `very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%. ... The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem. link
digby asks a very good question in the post referenced in comment #1:
Who, exactly, do the Democrats hope to have vote for them in the next election? For the moment, billionaires only get one vote.
Should be very popular indeed. Parent
Sigh. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Or out of the fire and into the ash bin. Parent
We really need better candidates. Parent
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal. ... Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities. TINS
Can't have that. Good government would risk disrupting flow of cash from the Street. Parent
According to reporting in the NYT, Ms. Kathryn Wylde, a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY who represents the public and criticized the lawsuit, engaged Mr. Schneiderman in a contentious discussion leaving the memorial services for former Governor Hugh Carey. Public member Wylde said that she told the NY Attorney General that "it is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street---love them or hate them. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible." Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment. Parent
At the other end of the spectrum there is my own FL AG Bondi who is against the settlement because it is too tough on the banks. Between all sides, this deal will probably get quashed no matter what the administration wants. Parent
It's not like Ms. Clinton would be out of opportunities if she quit...in fact, quitting my open up worlds to her....and at this point she could say she was simply tired of the job. No harm, no foul!
But she's with them. She's enjoying the power and she apparently agrees with the policy. Parent
To Oculus's point, other cabinet officers undoubtedly support it too, but she is the only one that is SoS and her opinion has a lot more weight on this issue than most. Parent
What will they do to her if she doesn't campaign...take away her millions? deny her further positions? She plans to retire after this.
She likes this policy. She likes her power....and if she didn't? having to campaign for Obama would be pretty small potatoes as a tradeoff for getting out of a job furthering a policy she doesn't want. Parent
Parent
People are responsible for their own actions, no matter who their boss is. It's not like he's letting Obama off the hook either. I can see where that comment from Clinton might have grated and it was very pointed, and spoke to the issue at hand in the article. Parent
A few of my favorites:
A fugitive was caught kissing his girlfriend on the "Kiss Cam" at Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park. The only problem was, he skipped out on his court date a few months ago -- and his parole officer saw the smooch. He was arrested in his front-row seat.
SNIP
A wanted man in New York taunted police by posting his location and "catch me if you can" on Facebook. So, U.S. Marshals tracked him down and arrested him like he asked.
This Michigan man who fled a courthouse after his sentencing. Too bad the police officer chasing after him was a marathon runner. The man was quickly caught and taken back to jail.
A Florida man who was arrested after attacking a woman with a pool noodle. The dispute occurred after the woman allegedly threw his watermelon into the ocean.
Watch out for angry people with pool noodles!
Well, so much for the process and the outcome at this point is what it is. Hopefully, a little less triumph and a little more trepidation will be shown "going forward," and a NATO occupation will not be needed as the "rebels" sort out their interests, cast about for a government and divide the oil spoils. And, hopefully, Muannar al Qaddafi will not be subjected to a botched hanging and his sons' heads will not be paraded around on a stick. That, at least, would be a good start.
Son wants me to stay NOW, but y'all know I can't... Surgery set for October. I can, however, set up a job for next year!
How long will you be in Colombia this trip? Since the surgery isn't until October, can/will you stay until then? Parent
Can't beat that. Parent
Libyan rebel Husam Najjair seems more concerned about the possibility of rebels turning on each other when they try to take control of the capital Tripoli than the threat posed by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. "The first thing my brigade will do is set up checkpoints to disarm everyone, including other rebel groups, because otherwise it will be a bloodbath," said Najjair. "All the rebel groups will want to control Tripoli. Order will be needed." link
"The first thing my brigade will do is set up checkpoints to disarm everyone, including other rebel groups, because otherwise it will be a bloodbath," said Najjair. "All the rebel groups will want to control Tripoli. Order will be needed." link
Next question is "Who will disarm Najjair's group?" Parent
The democratic wing of the tea party, comes from the 2008 primaries. The way the party treated Hillary and Bill. Not counting votes from Michigan and Florida. The unfair weight given to the caucus states. Giving Obama, Hillary delegates. The super delegates. The pushing of a inexperience candidate over a better candidate. The use of race. The treatment of women. I don't think the democratic party has realized what they have done to the party. There no sense of loyalty. There is no upcoming new young democrat. It's all Obama. The difference between tea party and independents? The tea party truly want a third party candidate.
That said, they would not win on their own, so they are stuck like glue to the GOP. How many disaffected Dems are really part of the tea party? Very few, I suspect. Hard for me to see how one could support Hillary Clinton and the tea path at the same time. Parent
The tea party is a group of americans concerned about the direction of the country.
The tea party seems republican because it's the only way to change things. The democrat has no chance of tea party support in the 2012 presidential election. Maybe in down ticket races. Depends on the candidate put forth.
Believe me there are a lot of former democrat whom belongs to the tea party. Personally I've been a democrat all my life. My disenchantment began with the 2000 election. The way the party treated Gore was terrible. He won, but the party did not stand by him. I was for Wes Clark in '04'. Someone else the party treated badly. The 2008 primaries was the final straw. The racist charges against the Clinton. Obama polices. And there wimps. You can Label them whatever you want. But cannot deny there is a movement going on in this country. A third party candidate that wins, will give the people, back control of the country. Parent
The tea partiers have no problems with the wars as far as I've seen.
I wouldn't count the people who disagree with the RBC and all that as tea partiers. I would call them "Democrats in Exile" or some other description. The tea party largely seems to function as a far right organization. Parent
I grew up with the democrat party fighting for voters rights. And fair elections.It was what the party stood for. To accuse someone of being a racist(when clearly you know this not true),is horrible. Blacks and whites fought side by side for equal rights for blacks and women. And this the way they treat the first women candidate for the presidency. This is not the democratic party that I knew. I supported Hillary run for the white house. I still believe she would have been a great president. But Hillary is a pol. She did what she thought was best for the party. I like to do what I think is best for the country.
Maybe no one is paying attention, but every election since 2004 at least one branch of government has changed. Parent
One day I hope all of us will call ourselves, Americans. Parent
And I don't know where the racism part comes in here either.
I'm really not just seeing the point you are trying to make.
People are disgusted with both parties right now but for different reasons I would say. There's plenty of people on this blog who are disgusted with Obama but it's certainly not the same reason that the tea party is I would imagine. Parent
My problem with the dems.party is the game they played with Bill Clinton in South Carolina. It was used to inflame the black population. And if you remember Hillary was leading in SC at that time. Do you think Bill and Hillary are racist? Will Donna Brazil(member of the roolz committee),rep. Clayborn(member of the democratic leadership) Ted Kennedy(senator),Roland Martin (cnn analyst) do.
There is a lot of reasons people have left both parties. Theses are my reason. Parent
He repeatedly claims that NATO defeated Gaddafi's army, when it is clear that the Libyans did the fighting and dying. This is so that he can make the specious point that we don't know what will happen next. Well, no, of course we don't, but it is not up to us. It is not our revolution, it is the Libyans revolution. The world could have chosen to sit this out and watch civilians be slaughtered, but instead we chose to support the people of Libya. Juan Cole has an informed post on Libya, partly rebutting Glenn.
Glenn also, unfortunately, identifies with Republican congressmen who, while claiming to support the Libyans, chose to dicker with the funding of already committed forces, drawing Secretary Clinton's question "Whose side are you on?"
Glenn often engages in solid criticism, but this was a contradictory and misleading piece.
Glenn concludes that "none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday's events." and that pointing out which arguments have been disproved by Gaddafi's collapse is "Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny"
Glenn's conclusion does not hold up, the above arguments against the intervention were proved false by Gaddafi's rapid collapse, and pointing out their falsity doesn't shield anything from scrutiny.
His larger, more substantive argument, which I addressed in my original post, rests on a conflation of the civil war which we precipitated in Iraq by invading, with our intervention on behalf of the Libyan people in their revolution against Gaddafi. Juan Cole addresses how the means of Gaddafi's ouster undermines Glenn's contention ("It's impossible not to be moved by the celebration of Libyans over the demise of (for some at least) their hated dictator") that this revolution was really a civil war, and that our intervention would make things worse. Parent
You're mischaracterizing it.
Beyond that, Ghaddafi "rapid fall" took 7 months.
Not seeing how the END happening after a seven month struggle quickly disproves that the entire event would not happen quickly. Beyond that, was that really the objection? Not in my opinion. Parent
Glenn's first sentence, "But the real toll of this war (including the number of civilian deaths that have occurred and will occur) is still almost entirely unknown", is true regardless of NATO intervention, and therefore specious. His last "the everything-is-justified-if-we-get-a-Bad-Guy mentality -- is one of the most common and destructive staples of American political discourse, and it's no better when done here." is false, since per my argument above Gaddafi's collapse disproves some arguments against the intervention, and making that point is not an "everything is justified" mentality.
Gaddafi's collapse from 'stalemate' to gone was rapid, it appeared to happen suddenly yesterday. It was rapid because his support within Libya was very shallow. Some people argued that the length of the war showed that Gaddafi had deeper support. But the seven months from the beginning of the revolution to yesterday was mostly, as Juan Cole explains, the rebels organizing and training to defeat Gaddafi's small but well armed force.
If the objection was that Obama's limited intervention could not do enough to topple Gaddafi, then that objection was proved wrong, Obama's intervention degraded Gaddafi's heavy weaponry, enabling the rebels to topple him with less loss of life. If the objection was that NATO intervention would increase the loss of life in the revolution, then the fact that Gaddafi's forces largely fled as Tripoli rose up against them shows that contention to be unfounded. NATO's intervention reduced the number of deaths by destroying Gaddafi's heavy weapons and helping cut off his supplies.
If those were not the real objections, what were? Parent
Glenn concludes that "none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday's events."
You mischaracterized that one.
Thern you wrote "that pointing out which arguments have been disproved by Gaddafi's collapse is 'Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny'"
You mischaracterized THAT one as well.
You then stopped quoting Glenn and wrote
"Glenn's conclusion does not hold up, the above arguments against the intervention were proved false by Gaddafi's rapid collapse, and pointing out their falsity doesn't shield anything from scrutiny."
That was not Glenn's conclusion.
Finally you ask "If those were not the real objections, what were?
A lot was written at the time by me, both here and at daily kos. Those were MY personal objections.
I think they are a fair representation of what the "real objections" were and are.
You've discussed precisely NONE of them. Parent
Glenn links to Balloon Juice as an example of people who "exploit the emotions from Gadaffi's fall to shame those who questioned the war" The Balloon Juice post lists recent quotes from Republican presidential candidates objecting to the intervention on the grounds that it was not sufficient to unseat Gaddafi. Gaddafi is unseated, therefore the intervention was sufficient, and those arguments are resolved by the events of yesterday.
I honestly don't understand what I have mischaracterized. Yes, Glenn's arguments on the legality of the intervention are stronger, but many arguments against intervention were resolved yesterday, many as in more than none. Parent
Whoops, too late. Parent
It is all sheer emotional manpulation, and I resent it as much now as I did when this scheme was first proposed. Parent
The cost of intervening in Libya was minimal, in blood and treasure, had a high probability of success, given the popular indigenous revolution, and was aligned with American principles of self-governance. It was entered into as a result of our treaty obligations to the UN and NATO.
The legality under the war powers act is in dispute, but Glenn did not link to anyone saying "Gaddafi's a bad guy and he is out so it was legal." His argument is that the administration's defense is inadequate and legalistic. Parent
Or Hitchens either. Hitchens ignores legality altogether. Parent
It was clear before NATO intervened that Gaddafi had lost control over Libya, and that he would have to use extreme violence to regain it. The likely event without NATO was a long, brutal war, with atrocities on both sides, and the eventual defeat of Gaddafi. Parent
Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has hired Reid Weingarten, a high-profile Washington defense attorney whose past clients include a former Enron accounting officer, according to a government source familiar with the matter. Blankfein, 56, is in his sixth year at the helm of the largest U.S. investment bank, which has spent two years dodging accusations of conflicts of interest and fraud. The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue. The Securities and Exchange Commission scored a $550 million settlement against the bank in a fraud lawsuit in July 2010, but other investigations continue. "Why do you bring in someone like that?" said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "It says one thing: that they're taking it seriously."
Blankfein, 56, is in his sixth year at the helm of the largest U.S. investment bank, which has spent two years dodging accusations of conflicts of interest and fraud.
The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue.
The Securities and Exchange Commission scored a $550 million settlement against the bank in a fraud lawsuit in July 2010, but other investigations continue.
"Why do you bring in someone like that?" said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "It says one thing: that they're taking it seriously."
Link Probably the smart thing to do.