As far as I’m concerned, the question has been definitively answered; the Democrats are an aggregation of opportunists and ciphers that will never constitute a repository of anyone’s hopes or political aspirations.

- David Smith

Superb comment. I share your perfectly expressed sentiments.

- Glenn Greenwald

Glenn,

Would you consider Russ Feingold a opportunist and cipher who will never constitute a repository of anyone’s hopes and dreams?

While I share David’s view of “Emanuel and the creepy Democratic Leadership Council” I wonder just how a comment like this applies to Feingold, who has been saying all the right things on NSA; or Durbin, who was particularly eloquent on the Military Commissions Act.

In other words, how do we denounce what is wrong with so many in the Democratic Party without smearing and alienating those who’ve managed to achieve a modicum of power and are trying to do the right things?

Russ Feingold quoted you in his Senate testimony at one point. Is he going to do that again if you dismiss him as an “opportunist” who you don’t respect because he’s a member of the Democratic Party?

I share David’s anger, but we need to channel that anger constructively, and that means separating the wheat from the chaff – making a distinction between the opportunists, and those who are genuinely (although ineffectively) attempting to stand up for the checks and balances in the Constitution.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress voted the right way on this issue. Rove will smear the party for that, saying that’s in fact what they stand for. (Soft on terrorism.)

And at the same time, David and you are saying the party stands for nothing, only the retention of power.

Is that fair to Russ Feingold and all the others who dared to stand up to Rove’s smears?

Why isn’t there a way to condemn those who sacrificed principles for political expediency without smearing those who didn’t?

At one point (about 18min;13 sec in) David Rifkin is talking about how unfortunate it is that we will have this debate again in six months and then he talks about getting this program up and running says this:

“the fact that we don’t know what the regime will be governing the intercepts makes it more difficult for the intelligence community to operate.”

What does this mean, exactly? Why does knowing that the Bush administration will no longer be in power make it more difficult for the intelligence community to operate our surveillance programs?

If the intelligence community is operating as it is supposed to, within the law, why does the prospect of a new regime complicate what it is doing?

Maybe I’m making too much out of this, but it just jumped out at me.

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack weren’t the only ones on that trip to Iraq there were others like Anthony Cordesman, but he came back with a completely different view that didn’t serve the administration’s propaganda blitz - so he’s not to be taken seriously.

The “unserious” Cordesman:

“It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country.

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence.”

Nothing to see here, just move along. It’s time to look for someone “we know who is serious or honest enough to talk to regardless of what their politics may be.”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/08/breaking_iraq_t.php

I don’t believe anyone has cited this article that describes and compares The American Enterprise Institute with The Council of Foreign Relations - both charter members in Serious Thinkers R Us. Lots of interesting tidbits in it. Especially the conclusion:

One general characteristic of ruling class thinking, both within the AEI and CFR, is a frequent underestimation of the rebellion capabilities of the larger population, at home and, more especially, in other countries. This rebellion has been the main reason for the defeat, so far at least, of U.S. plans for exploiting Iraq and its oil wealth. The CFR, at least, appears to have learned from this defeat, and perhaps is willing to pursue a new and somewhat more enlightened course in regard to both Iraq and Iran. But the CFR still wants to control Iraq using different tactics. It has a long history of support for imperialistic actions and an overlapping membership with the even more aggressively imperialistic AEI.Therefore, in the end, there is no substitute for the varied activities of people’s movements to prevent the worst outcomes from occurring. The AEI and CFR and the larger ruling class will sometimes battle each other and sometimes agree on what joint policies to follow. It is ultimately up to working class people to help decide, through their direct actions, or lack of them, what the outcome will be.

In the book/movie Fight Club mentioned by Glenn, one of my favorite lines is “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.”

Well, our Serious Thinkers seem to give us flawed ideas that find us pursuing policies we shouldn’t have so we have to fight wars we don’t need or want.

And the line from the movie that best describes what should be done with this “ruling class thinking” is this one:

“Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic; it's all going down, man.”

Serious thinkers take note.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2007/shoup.html