Tag Archives: Iraq

Blackwater: “indiscriminate killers” take action!

(cross-posted on Daily Kos)

This morning I opened my email and found a tirade by a friend currently serving in Iraq about Blackwater killing all of those civilians and the U.S. Army having to go in and stop them.  First of all, I was relieved to see that he was alive, as I am any time I get an email from him.  Then I was incensed by what he wrote.  I asked if he would be willing to share what he has seen of Blackwater on the ground in Baghdad.  Here is his statement, as a Army Captain, West Point graduate and a Combat Patrol Leader in Baghdad.

My impression of Blackwater after having served 10 months of my tour in Baghdad is that they are trigger happy, unrestrained by our army’s rules of engagement, a danger to Iraqi civilians and coalition forces alike, behave as if they are above the law, are viewed as indescriminate killers by the population, and have no business operating in a combat theater.  The consensus among my peers is they are a liability, not an asset.  Our government’s money would be better spent on increasing the size of our regular army than on hiring thrill-seeking cowboys loyal only to a paycheck.

He is right.  We have the best military in the world.  Our proud men and women are more than capable at protecting our embassy staff and fulfilling other security roles.  There is no reason for Blackwater to be in Iraq in the first place.

Many of us feel like there is little we can do about Blackwater.  it appears that Blackwater is under no jurisdiction: not Iraqi law, not U.S. law, not international law.  The Iraqi government may not even be able to prosecute Blackwater’s mercenaries, since a law issued by the U.S. occupation before the Iraqis were given their sovereignty in 2004 gives all American contractors immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

But you know what?  There is something we can do right now to stand up to Blackwater and we need your help.

Blackwater has a 7,000 acre training facility in North Carolina. It also has a large facility outside of Chicago. But that is not enough: Blackwater is now trying to open an 824-acre facility in east San Diego County that will have as many as 700 people present at any given time. The obvious goal? Blackwater wants to guard the California border with Mexico.

Imagine the headlines when they gun down unarmed civilians on the border. Or when they “show up” for an emergency like an earthquake in Los Angeles or San Francisco armed to the teeth — as they did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina — and offer their services? Will they go away quietly? Will we have to call in our own National Guard to get them to leave, just as happened in Iraq?

Join thousands of activists and Courage Campaign in helping stop, as Rick Jacobs says in the KNBC clip, “the creation of a mafia-like organization”.  This nation can no longer afford to support mercenaries on our soil or off. We certainly cannot allow Blackwater to open a base in California.

Now that the Iraqi government is attempting to ban Blackwater USA, will Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer move to ban Blackwater West from California?

Sign the petition and tell Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Governor Schwarzenegger to stop Blackwater.

Courage Campaign just sent out an email to all members urging that they sign the petition.  Will you join them?  We already have 4,000 names on it.  Add yours.

Special thanks to Brave New Films for grabbing that video and putting it up.

The Case for Bill Richardson: Leadership for America

This diary is part of the candidate series on MyDD for Bill Richardson.  I am Californian supporter of Richardson.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Richardson has been called a “force of nature.” When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile earlier this year, Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, “It just never stops; it’s busy, busy, busy. He’s got an agenda like you can’t believe.”  New Mexican Republican Representative Dan Foley added, “People shouldn’t count him out. You won’t find a person who works harder.”

Richardson fights for the principals he believes in. I offer two of many examples:

First, while Secretary of Energy, against opposition in Congress and even criticism from within the Clinton Administration, Richardson acknowledged the Energy Department’s long history of denying responsibility for workers’ injuries at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He stated, “We need to right this wrong.”

Richardson successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation providing payments and medical benefits to the workers that developed cancer and other serious diseases.

Second, in April 2007, Richardson spoke at Rally to Save the People of Darfur in San Francisco. He was the only Presidential candidate that attended, even though they were all in California that weekend for the California Democratic Party Convention.  Prior to speaking, a reporter asked Richardson why he was there. Richardson’s response was an inspiration to all fighting for social change: “You have to be part of the causes you believe in.”

Richardson has been to Sudan three times visiting refugee camps and negotiating the release of American aid workers and journalists. He has never given up on Africa.

Richardson has had an outstanding record as Governor of New Mexico.  He increased school funding, expanded health care coverage, extended civil rights protections to include sexual orientation, made New Mexico a model for the rest of nation in promoting clean energy and fighting global warming, while cutting taxes to promote sustainable growth and balancing the state budget. For his commitment to protecting the state’s environment, the Conversation Voters of New Mexico gave Richardson “a solid A.

Richardson understands that the Democratic Party must be the party of economic progress.  He has assisted the private sector in New Mexico in creating new, high paying jobs. He calls on Democrats to “stand for policies that encourage innovation and expand economic opportunity.”

On education policy, Richardson understands that No Child Left Behind sets up our public schools for failure.  Unlike the other major candidates that want to somehow fix and preserve NCLB, Richardson’s approach is simple and clear:  scrap it.  Richardson writes::

NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and it has failed our children. The Bush administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. 

On global warming and energy policy, Richardson has set forth the most detailed and aggressive plan of all candidates – calling for a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club’s Director of Energy and Global Warming program, stated Richardson’s “18-page energy policy is much more aggressive than anything we’ve seen so far from the candidates.  It is also significantly better-elaborated in theory with regard to where we end up.” 

Richardson is the product of two nations, Mexico and the United States. His childhood friends included many of the poor in the neighborhood where his family lived in Mexico City.  He saw first hand the devastating impact of poverty on families and children. His bi-national upbringing necessitated understanding and then bridging two cultures. This laid the foundation for Richardson as an adult to become a peacemaker among nations and an expert in the art of diplomacy.

Richardson has articulated a new foreign policy for America which starts by recognizing the new challenges we face in the 21st century:

Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies-not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Richardson calls on the U.S. to foster “the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The U.S. government needs to see the world as it really is – so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place.”

On Iraq, Richardson has eloquently stated:

The War in Iraq is not the disease. Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance. The next President must be able to repair the damage that’s been done to our country’s reputation over the last six years. It’s why experience in foreign affairs has never been more important.

Richardson has the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. He is only major candidate that has repeatedly and unequivocally called for the complete withdrawal of ALL American forces from Iraq.

The others candidates lack the confidence to stand up to the military and political establishment and follow the will of the American people.  They accept the argument that a complete withdrawal of all American forces would be “irresponsible.”  As Richardson wrote wrote in a recent Op Ed, “On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.”

The fundamental difference between Obama, Edwards and HRC verse Richardson on Iraq is that Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government has become dependent on the U.S. for security the Iraqis should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

Likewise, without the direct and committed action by the President of the United States, Iraq will remain in chaos. Richardson is the only candidate with a track record of foreign policy success.  Richardson will lead a diplomatic offensive to bring peace and stability to the region.

That we must exit Iraq now is a message Richardson constantly delivers to voters.  He doesn’t tailor his message to the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war at two town halls in Iowa.  The first was at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and second at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

In closing, with Richardson we get two for the price of one: an energetic, can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat on foreign affairs.

No Iraq Vote On February Ballot

As expected, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have placed a vote on removing our troops from Iraq on the February 2008 ballot.

(as an aside, it wouldn’t likely matter in this case, but there is no veto override in California, which it seems to me vests an unbalanced amount of power in the executive)

Here’s Arnold’s statement on the veto:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 924 without my signature.

All Californians want the safe and swift return of our troops. That said, public opinion polls have confirmed again and again that Californians are sharply divided, as are all
Americans, as to when and how our troops should be withdrawn. We do not need an advisory ballot to understand this deep divide.

The decision to engage in or withdraw troops from war is a federal issue, not a state issue. Few decisions are more difficult for Members of Congress and the President. All
Californians have the right and the means to speak their mind on matters of such national importance.

In fact, California moved up its presidential primary to February 5th to give California voters a greater voice in selecting their party’s presidential candidate. There is no louder message Californians can send to Washington on the Iraq war than who should lead our nation.

Placing a non-binding resolution on Iraq on the same ballot, when it carries no weight or authority, would only further divide voters and shift attention from other critical issues that must be addressed.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Far from being a “squeeze” for Schwarzenegger, in my view this was utterly predictable and his rhetoric is consistent with his post-partisan reinvention; furthermore, he’s right that it’s a federal issue, and all of us who screamed about “nonbinding” Iraq resolutions shouldn’t be particularly angry that we won’t get to vote on a nonbinding one ourselves.  It’s obviously silly to veto a ballot measure because it would “divide” voters.  Any election divides voters!  But the rest of the statement is on pretty solid ground.

To truly impact the Iraq war, we need to put pressure on our legislators who actually have a vote, as they’re doing in Fresno with Bush Dog Jim Costa.  If we get every Democrat in the state on board with a “no funding without a timeline pledge, we force the Republicans to round up their own votes if they want to pass a blank check.  I’m assuming your representatives have already heard from you on this one.  They should hear from you again.

Peace Activists Speak Louder to Bush Dog Jim Costa

Fresno peace activists are taking it to Jim Costa.  A coordinated effort from throughout the region is coming together

to “pressure Democratic Representative Jim Costa to vote NO on the September bill to continue funding the occupation of Iraq.” [Peace Fresno president Bill] Simon wrote that “each group will take one day a week to picket in front of Costa’s office and perhaps to go into the office to say ‘No more funding’. We will also encourage passers by to call their Congressman and Senators.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey recently said that moderate Democrats need to hear the message that people in their district care.  In Fresno, the message is getting through to local activists.  Jean Hays, President of WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom) explains the strategy: “Some say Congress is not listening to us; we say maybe WE ARE NOT TALKING LOUD ENOUGH!!”

This is how we apply pressure and bring about change.

There was a great discussion over the weekend at DailyKos sparked by Major Danby’s How to be a more effective irrational pressure group diary.  The diary and subsequent discussion explored the best pressure points at which to apply pressure in order to bring about political movement.  It fits nicely with the OpenLeft conversations about the Bush Dog campaign that has included much hand-wringing over the potentially negative consequences of belligerence.  But note that this is in-your-face activism without a threatening stick.  These aren’t people calling for Rep. Costa’s head.  They aren’t screaming for a primary campaign.  They’re simply constituents calling on their representative to do the right thing.

This is what the Bush Dog campaign, and responsible citizenship in the first place, is all about.  It’s about both insisting that your representative do the right thing and demonstrating that when they do the right thing, there will be support at home and at the ballot box.  This may be tough love, but it most certainly is love.  It’s validation not only that it’s ok to do the right thing, not only that people expect it of Costa, but that people have faith that he has the willingness and capacity to do the right thing.

The response will be interesting to see, both immediately and in his votes.  He’ll have plenty of opportunity to change his voting habits on the Occupation of Iraq in the coming weeks.  In the meantime, it’s an encouraging sign to see people taking to the streets in a visible way to protest this occupation and to reassure Representative Costa that there’s support to end this outrage.  The people are behind you Rep. Costa.  Where are you?

Also at OpenLeft

Darrell Issa Loves Veterans at Home, Fails Them in Washington

At the end of August, Congressman Darrell Issa came to San Diego to discuss the Navy Broadway Complex development in the downtown harbor area.  While he was in town, he sat down for an interview with Navy Compass discussing broad themes of military and foreign relations.  NavyCompass does a great job with the questions, keeping them relevant to their content but ranging across a wide range of relevant issues.  He hits all the well-known pro-military talking points that Republicans love to throw around in public, but in the process draws a sharp distinction between talking the talk and walking the walk.  So how does Congressman Issa’s voting history match up with his glowing words about supporting veterans and soldiers? Let’s find out.

For purposes of convenience, we’ll work chronologically through the meat of the interview.

Congressman Issa is asked about the role of humanitarian missions by the military in the greater goal of national security, to which he responds:

Anytime a weapon is fired, it’s not just a failure of diplomacy, it’s a failure of the military to dissuade people from using war as a solution. So everytime we can show that what we want is to help people including through our military, we go a long way toward convincing the world that we are not just a nation of peace, but we are a nation that has a military to maintain our peace, and I think that these missions prove it.

So first of all, he’s saying that the deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq are, by their nature, diplomatic and military failures. Always a nice start and I think most people here would agree to various degrees.  Interesting then that ProgressivePunch would give him a perfect 0 rating on Iraq votes.  So right off the bat we know that Darrell Issa is unequivocal in his support for failure.  Along the same lines, Progressive Punch also has another relevant category here: Aid to Poor People in the Developing World.  Where does Darrell Issa come down there?  Another perfect 0 for the Congressman, rejecting among others aid to women and girls in Afghanistan, voting to cut U.S. financial support for U.N. relief operations, and voting against funding for the UN Family Planning Organization which provides  family planning information and health services to families in 150 countries.  Sounds like he’s really committed to helping the underpriviledged around the world.

He goes on to respond to questions about the importance of caring for veterans and ensuring their benefits:

I’d say that we’re doing a better job now then we did when I was active duty of recognizing supply and demand isn’t enough, that you have to make promises and keep promises to our soldiers not just when you really need them to get into the service or to reenlist, but throughout their careers. In the 60s and 70s we did a very bad job, both with the veterans administration, and quite frankly, with soldiers post Vietnam; we didn’t keep our promises on pay, military housing and certainly not on training. I think we’re doing better now, but every single year is a new challenge to remind people that whether we’re at war or peace, whether the war is popular or not, military training and morale is part of what keeps us safe and out of war more often. If an enemy knows we are prepared for war, the morale is high and the troops are ready, we’re less likely to be a target. That ounce of prevention has to be invested in every year and right now I think we’re going in the right direction, but everyday I worry we might start going in the wrong one.

My biggest priority right now is dealing with returning wounded warriors, many of whom don’t even have purple hearts. They were exposed to an IED, they shrugged it off, but in many many cases, they still have lasting effects. We need to get those personnel medical and personal support and recognition. We need to know whether or not they have a medical problem, whether or not counseling will help, and we need to eliminate the stigma of, “I’m a Marine, I can’t have headaches or be hurt, or I can’t have these problems.” That is a real change in culture for the Marines, and yet the amount of IED injuries that have gone unreported is an epidemic that must be worked on. Our wounded warrior center at Camp Pendleton is sort of our leading edge, but only the tip of the iceberg. The same can be said for our wounded veterans, who have left the service.

So the Congressman is a champion of the fighting man and woman?  Well, let’s go back to the voting record.  Progressive Punch gives him a 4.17% rating on aid to Veterans and a 4.55% rating on Well-Being of American Military Personnel.  What are some of the highlights of his voting record on military personnel and veterans?

After mentioning wounded warriors in his response, he also voted against consideration of the Wounded Warriors Resolution and the improved medical care for veterans that it would have provided.  After discussing the value of the military community, he voted against a Melancon amendment which would have increased funding for veteran medical care and cut funding for the base closure commission and voted against allowing introduction of an amendment that would tax millionaires to help pay for better veterans’ health care.  Less than ten days before that vote, he voted against an amendment to the 2006 budget that would use a reduction of millionaire tax breaks to fund increases to education, health care, veterans needs, homeland security, environmental and infrastructure budgets.  A pattern is clearly emerging that Issa is ready to abandon the fighting men and women of this country if there are millionaires at risk.  Interesting priorities.

But what else is there?  Issa voted against $150 million in funding for increased health and job-training services for veterans.  The Republican argument was that adding such funding would take too long.  Better to do things half-assed and quickly apparently.  He voted to disallow Bob Filner’s attempt to add $3.1 billion in Veterans Health Administration Appropriations to the emergency war funding bill.  Apparently it’s an emergency to get troops into the field but not take care of them when they get back.  And just in case there’s any question as to this being a recent phenomenon, let’s stretch back to 2003.  Back then, he voted in opposition to an attempt by Jim Marshall to allow U.S. veterans to immediately receive full disability and retirement benefits simultaneously.  The argument against that move was that Congress had already done enough, and full benefits weren’t that big a deal.

But it’s not all about health care and direct veterans’ care.  It’s also about protecting them in general.  Which is why it’s so difficult to understand Congressman Issa’s vote in 2004 opposing increased bankrupcy protections for military and veteran families.  The predatory lending and outrageous number of bankrupcies and foreclosures of the past few years don’t seem to reflect well on that vote.  Along the same lines, it’s tough to reconcile Issa’s full-throated support of veterans in public when voting against a $1500 pay raise proposed by Rep. Stupak and funded by reapportioning part of the money being spent on the importation of oil into Iraq.  Iraq needs extra oil more than our military families deserve a pay raise apparently.

Way to support veterans Congressman.

Rep. Lee On Iraq

Since we’re at the outset of Magical September and Congress is back in session, I thought it would be a good time to read some straight talk from one of California’s finest progressive legislators about the occupation of Iraq:

If you believe the Beltway hype, members of Congress will return today to a fiery debate about whether or not the president’s so-called “surge” has produced military progress in Iraq. Beltway pundits are breathlessly predicting Democrats will be thrown into disarray by claims that the increased troop levels in Iraq may have produced security results.

Don’t believe the hype. First off, the data are suspect. The Pentagon refuses to share the methodology by which it arrived at the metrics used to claim success. Even if the progress is real, it is hardly encouraging when put in perspective. When discussing the alleged gains he has overseen, Gen. David H. Petraeus stated that they put us on a course to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq sometime nine or 10 years from now.

What the debate about military progress really does is serve as a distraction – a smokescreen – put forth by an administration that finds it rhetorically convenient to speak in terms of “victory” and “defeat.”

Read the whole thing.  And ask your representative if they’re on the list of those who will not give one more dime to this tragic effort without a redeployment of troops.

August 30, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

Health Care

Voting Integrity

Electoral “Reform”

Energy &
Environment

Iraq

Fifteen Percent Doolittle

Local

Everything Else

Is your Congressman on this List? They all should be

Here’s a list of some CA Congress Critters:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Lois Capps (CA)

What is this list? It’s a list of the California delegation that has signed on to the following statement:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

You can find more information at DailyKos. You can contact your Congress critter here.

Bring Ken Calvert Home from Washington…Permanently!

(Thanks to Bill Hedrick for coming by to interact with us. As a candidate, per our informal rules, he goes to the front page. – promoted by David Dayen)

My name is Bill Hedrick.  I am a school board member and a teacher, and a candidate for Congress in California’s 44th district.  I want to go to Washington to represent you.  Help me bring Rep. Ken Calvert home to Corona…permanently. 

Ken’s record speaks for itself.  Ken opposed increasing the minimum wage (H.R. 2, 1-10-07) and he opposed allowing the government to negotiate for better prices for Medicare prescriptions (H.R. 4, 1-12-07).  He opposed equal pay for equal work (H.R. 2831, 7-31-07), and voted against affordable housing for Katrina victims (H.R. 254, 3-20-07).  He has opposed reasonable conservation measures and voted against the Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act (H.R. 6, 1-18-07).

Ken has supported George Bush’s war every step of the way-most recently supporting the deployment of additional tens of thousands of soldiers to Iraq (H. Cong. R. 63, 2-16-07).  Ironically, he has voted against a military pay raise (H.R. Call 554, 10-17-03).

Against this appalling record, I can say that my family supports the troops-including my son and daughter-in-law, both stop-lossed, and currently serving second deployments.  But I believe Americans cannot resolve the Iraqi civil war-Iraqis need to settle it themselves, and I believe this is the view of most residents of the 44th.  I support a timeline for withdrawal, and I will work hard to bring all our troops home.

Moreover, unlike Ken, I will support trade policies that safeguard the interests of working Americans.  The lax environmental and labor requirements for foreign-based manufacturers in current trade agreements have placed Americans at a tremendous disadvantage.  Speaking of labor, you will probably not be surprised that Ken also voted against easing Labor’s right to organize (H.R. 118, 3-1-07).

With this kind of record in Congress, what’s there not to like?  Plenty!

Please help us “Bring Ken Home!”  We need him in Corona so that he can stop hurting us in Washington!

Check us out at hedrickforcongress.com, at DFA Campaigns or MySpace, or help us out at ActBlue.com! 

How did Jerry do?

Here are my initial thoughts on his FDL chat which just concluded.  I don’t think he was ever going to gain a lot from his comments, but the appearance was important.  He left a lot folks frustrated, including yours truly with his failure to address repeated questions.  He was never going to be able to get to them all, but I believe it may be wise for him to take the time to respond to some of them.

Jerry was able to clear up one very important thing.  His negative comments about the leadership were about two things, letting FISA go through without a fight and not stopping the supplemental with the rule he voted against (that’s a pretty parliamentarian discussion, not worth getting into right now).  Jerry stuck strong to his belief that he can bring along Republicans to negotiate a pull out and override the president’s veto.

More below the fold, including the my questions that went unanswered.

Here is my initial question, which Jane Hamsher echoed further down the thread.

Jerry, thank you for continuing the dialogue. I feel confident in saying that we have a heck of a lot more in common than we don’t. That said, there seems to be a big difference in what you believe is the swiftest path to ending the War and the blogosphere/Dem leadership/AAEI.

My question is why did you choose to speak to that particular reporter at the WaPo about our differences on a day when you were working to repair your relationship with the netroots?

He never came close to talking about the Washington Post article and his role in its formation.  I repeated my question in a different way towards the end, but before he ended the chat.

I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I don’t think anyone disagrees about pressuring Republicans to come to Jesus on the war. I actually think it is a great idea for you to be doing this up on the Hill with individual Republicans.

What I question is talking about it publicly. There seems to be little for you to gain from talking to the press, unless someone has tried to make the case that appearing “moderate” on the war and conciliatory towards Republicans is to the benefit of your re-election. That could not be further from the truth.

Ambassador Joe Wilson was tenacious in the thread and his points were never addressed.

I’d like to know who on the Republican side of the aisle you think you can work with who won’t in the end double cross you or be forced back into line by the Republican leadership.
Let me add as one who has fought the right tooth and nail for the past five years, offers of compromise are viewed as weakness on the other side and pocketed as concessions.

There is the issue of trusting them and working with them in general and then the point about the discussion of those efforts publicly.  There is severe friction on both items.

Wilson again:

I have to leave and it is clear that there are many more questions than you have time to answer, so let me just offer a thought or two.
It is the nature of democracy to seek the compromises that benefit the many without disadvantaging the minority’s essential, constitutionally protected rights. And in normal times your ideas of persuading republicans of the value of your positions would be laudable.
These are not normal times and your political adversaries have a very different agenda as we have seen since the arrival of Newt, and then W to positions of power. It is clear that they are committed shredding of the constititution and the imposition of undemocratic and unAmerican practices including the politicization of those very institutions that have grown up over 230 years to protect our contract with those who govern us. It is an unprecedented power grab and simultaneous looting of the American treasury for the benefit of a few who they hope will keep them in power. You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.

As an afterthought, the military takes orders from civilian authority. We don’t “negotiate” with generals.

This post is a little rougher than I would like, but I want to get this up while everyone has the discussion fresh in their mind.  I know I was on IM with two regulars round these parts and people are wanting to mull over what just went down.