General Petraeus (iow The Administration) to Recommend Troop Reduction

Two stories on the much anticipated White House BS Report on Iraq (better known as the “General Petraeus” Progress Report) indicate that the White House may finally have come to the realization that they will not be able to sustain this war much longer. The first was an article from The LA Times stating that the report “would actually be written by the White House”. It also indicated that troops would be redeployed, but stopped short of saying that the report would recommend troop cuts. Later in the day, the AP reported Petraeus was in fact recommending a troop reduction.

A couple of things stand out through all this. First of all, there was this tidbit from The LA Times article:

“There were some in the drafting of the report that said, ‘Well, we can claim progress,’ ” the administration official said. “There were others who said: ‘Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it’s not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it’s had no effect on the ground.’ “

This dilemma forces the Administration to explain why the surge has failed to suppress the violence in Iraq. If we use previous White House spin operations as a guide, the most likely explanation will be something like “The terrorists have stepped up their operations in hopes that they can persuade Congress and the American people to back down”.

There’s no reason to believe that won’t work for them as it has in the past, except for the fact that, in this situation, they’d actually be “backing down”, and thus giving the terrorists “what they want”, if their very own report, presented by their very own General, recommends troop reductions.

It’s going to be tough for Democrats to paint Bush as “backing down” when they have been urging for troop reductions for two years now, but clearly this is a flaw in logic that must be exploited. I mean really, if increases in violence are due to terrorists trying to influence US policy as the Administration claims, shouldn’t similar logic imply that a troop reduction right at the peak of that violence be an act of submission to terrorist demands?

Stealing Electoral Votes

An initiative to alter the way California distributes its electoral votes has national democrats nervous. SemDem of DailyKos’ diary on this initiative has attracted massive amounts of attention. As The Christian Science Monitor reports, the measure is being pushed by GOP strategists in order to influence the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election.

Aside from the typical grassroots opposition, there is hope that someone will step forward to include another similar, yet protective initiative that states something like: “California shall petition the Federal Government to alter the Electoral College System. California shall not split its electoral votes until national legislation to alter the electoral college has been implemented.”

The point of this, first and foremost, is to create confusion. And if it passes, great, then California will have electoral reform on the books as one of the state’s priorities, as well as a guarantee that Republicans cannot take another stab at this anytime they feel it would help them get elected.

Additionally, SemDem suggests taking the folowing measures:

• Contact AG Jerry Brown and have him declare it unconstitutional: http://ag.ca.gov/…
• Text networks to spread the word at places gathering signatures for the opposition
• Supporting http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/…
• Contact the CA Dems, the CA Representatives, organizations like MoveON.org

Even still, the key will be to launch, organize, and fund a counter-initiative to place on the ballot. Updates will be forthcoming.

by ARN

Rove’s Resignation Not a Good Thing

Too many people in the blogosphere have been rejoicing in the announcement that Karl Rove will be resigning from his post as Minister of Propaganda at the end of the month. While this may seem like a victory in light of the mounting pressure on the White House to confess its sins, I doubt that this announcement has anything to do with the numerous investigations into White House misconduct.

First of all, Rove is not as closely tied to this scandal (meaning the Illegal Wiretapping/Ashcroft Death Bed scandal) as he was to the Valerie Plame scandal. If ever there were a time to get Rove out of Dodge, DC, it would have been at the height of Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation. Additionally, unlike previous Bush co-conspirators who announced their resignation/firing on a Friday to limit press on the matter, this announcement came on a Sunday, guaranteeing it would be the biggest news Monday morning.

It is far more likely that the reason for Rove’s departure from 1600 Pennsylvania is to free him up to join one of the Republican Presidential candidates. I would assume that Fred Thompson will be the one to inherit Karl Rove since his campaign is just beginning, giving Rove full control of the message and tempo of the campaign.

It may also be a harbinger of more political baggage coming from the White House. Perhaps a strike at Iran. By clearing Rove out before tainting him with Iran (or some other controversial act), he can still be useful in next year’s General election to Republicans.

The only way to rid Karl Rove from politics is to pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Until the extent of his criminal masterminding is laid bare for all to see, we can expect Rove to continue to haunt our political system.

Expect more from DC4SF on the issue of impeachment and why it is not only possible, but practical as well, and urgently needed for the sake of our democracy.

by ARN

Changes to Foreign Intelligence Sureveillance Act of 1978

The Democratic takeover of Congress last year became known as “The Wave” amongst political types here in DC and elsewhere. The passage of S. 1927, which gave Alberto Gonzeles the legal authority to spy on American citizens without a warrant, may become infamously known as “The Cave”.

Democrats caved on this one big time. The original purpose of this bill was to correct a supposed defect in the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was preventing the government from spying on foreigners who routed their communications through the US. Regardless of how you may feel about this, by itself it is a minor issue, as Congress is constantly tinkering with intelligence issues such as this one. But combined in a bill, packaged by Republicans, with a clause to expand the reach of the original Act to include warrantless surveillance of communications between foreigners and Americans, and you have an amazingly transparent violation of the 4th Amendment.

How did this happen? Well, for starters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid screwed us. He struck a deal with Republicans to bring the bill to the floor. Nobody knows what the terms of the deal are, but there was most certainly a deal in place before bringing it to the floor, as illustrated by the 60  yes votes in the Senate (just enough to prevent a filibuster), and the fact that 6 Democrats (and 12 Senators total) did not vote at all. So rare is it that 12 Senators would skip a vote on a bill, that no more than 7 have missed a vote on the same bill since 2003, when 8 Senators did not vote on a bill that was to be decided unanimously (in other words, its fate was not in doubt).

This gave conservative Democrats the ok to vote in favor of the bill, and just like that the 4th Amendment was defaced. Their rationale? Well, the official line is that they wanted to protect Americans from terrorists, of course. The “inside baseball” angle on this, however, is that they didn’t want to give Republicans the ability to label them as soft on terrorism during the summer break. Never underestimate the Democratic tendency to fear Republican labels more than the ire of their base, much less show concern over the threat a bill like this poses to the essential freedoms the Bill of Rights was designed to protect.

Among the Democrats who voted for this bill is our very own Diane Feinstein. While that surprises few, I was surprised to see that Barbara Boxer was one of those who did not vote. I guess her travel plans were a little more important than defending the constitution. Bummer. At least we had one representative who voted against this horrible bill. Unfortunately she’s the same person who allowed it to come to a vote before the House.

So lets spread the love a little:

Senator Feinstein: webmail, (415) 393-0707

Senator Boxer webmail, (415) 403-0100

Speaker Pelosi, webmail, (415) 556-4862

by ARN