Just pathetic. The dems should have added an amendment to that 'sense' bill celebrating the constitution and free political speech, *then* made the GOP vote on that. But, because the dems are simply the most pathetic bunch of whipped losers I've ever seen, they got right in line and cast their stupid, vapid, tool-like votes against their own ferkin base. Pathetic! Laugh-out-loud hilarious! Feel-good joke of the year!

that said, moveon should just ignore the whole carnival, just bring the heat. *Moveon* started this. No sense in crying about it now. By hindsight, I think they missed with the headline. Everyone is talking about that, rather than the message below the headline. The headline became the shiny object. But I'm not a moveon member, so what I think means absolutely nothing.

it was gregory

Jim, as I read the thing, it is not a Goebbels speech at all, but something Browne cobbled together based on Miller's infamous "spitball" speech at the GOP convention. It simply reminds Browne of something Goebbels would do.

It could be a bit clearer.

You should become a proprietor of your own blog. I'd read you.

As many of us have said before, given our system, fighting this fight within the Democratic Party seems likely to be more fruitful than doing so outside it.

I'm an outsider to your party, but think you're probably right (fwiw), at this point in time. But one would think many democratic rank and file have got to be wondering about alternatives. We've batted 3rd party concept around quite a bit here and at the old site, but that seems less than thrilling in important ways.

Quite a pickle.

what is that?

"We just keep finding candidates to run in primaries against sackless Dems, and of course find strong willed Dems to run against any and all Republican Senate and Congressional seats that are in play."

I believe there will be another strong showing by dems in '08. They should have both houses and the WH. I will vote for them.

But it would be unrealistic to expect another 8 or 9 senate seats changing hands. I expect that the majority will still have great difficulties making progress in the senate, especially given their current state of (dis)organization and (un)leadership there. The way they're going, it will take 70 democratic members to manage to squeak out a 60 vote cloture.

1. Some NATO members would clearly question their own membership if a true push was made to get Israel in. Is the creation of stress lines--or even fracture lines--within NATO in US interest?

2. We tend to think of mutual defense treaties as ways of keeping the peace. But they can also be used as ways to initiate conflict. Is it in US interest to make wars more likely? Wars that we are obligated to fight?

3. Defense treaties among nation-states will arguably not impact/reduce employment of terror tactics. Because, in spite of the many spurious claims to the contrary, terror is not state-based. Is it in US interest to increase the likelihood of more wars, without actually addressing the frequency and causes of terrorism?

4. NATO membership would certainly embolden Israel to become more aggressive with her neighbors. They already have a nuclear deterrent. They have reportedly recently bombed Syria. They have no problem boarding shipping and inspecting cargoes whenever they feel the need. They have access to virtually unlimited arms from their US ally. Do they need NATO assurance on top of all this? Is a more militarily-aggressive Israel in the best interest of the US?

True, true. And with the addition of one Nile Gardiner to Rudi's staff, he may be aiming at becoming the "American Margaret Thatcher".

Bet you he's already thinking about how to accessorize that look...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/05/im_not_sure_how.html

“Iraq Redeployment Legislation Must Have Firm Deadline, Enforceable Cut Off of Funds”

September 21, 2007

Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) reiterated that he will only support legislation on Iraq that contains a firm and enforceable timetable for redeploying U.S. troops as well as an enforceable cut off of funds for future combat operations in Iraq. That is why Senator Dodd voted against the Reed-Levin amendment.

I guess this was simply a gesture to the "get-out-now" segment, knowing that the cloture votes weren't there anyway.

link at name

"Is Israel a European country? That is the core question. "

That may be your core question, but it is not the core question.

The core question is what America's interests in the ME are. Immediately followed by the question "is american ME policy advancing American interests".

It is remarkable how quickly such discussions get sidetracked onto inordinate focus on Israel.

I had forgotten about Edwards too. Did not Edwards also say that "all options should be on the table" regarding Iran? That's another favorite crowd-pleaser.

Thank god we're not the boss of NATO. One would hope that our european allies will not be so enamored of 'all NATO, all over the world'.

Paul Dirks mentioned way upthread about the entangling alliances prior to WWI. Exactly right. Overlapping, overextended treaties that acted like a Rube Goldberg contraption from Hell to rapidly expand conflict.

http://www.rube-goldberg.com/