I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record about Lieberman, but I don’t know how else to remind people how bad a choice he was in November 2006. So many people fell for his crap. He is a liar and a hypocrite and demonstrates a startling lack of judgement on all things foreign policy.

Look, there are rarely “right” or “wrong” answers when it comes to policy preferences. In other words, if you’re trying to solve a problem, you can often find good solutions whether you’re a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a social liberal, or a leftist. The best debates are about which plans are the best.

On the other hand, there are politicians who are simply the wrong choice. These candidates lie about where they stand, what they believe in, and what their motivations are in running. Often, they are driven by ego more than anything else. Voting for George W. Bush in 2004 was wrong. It was a mistake, and our country is poorer for it. He remains a man who cannot admit mistakes. He believes Iraq is going GREAT and congratulated Mike Brown on a great job handling Katrina.

My fellow Connecticut residents who voted for Joe Lieberman have made a similar mistake. He lied to us, claiming he would work to end the war, that he would work with Democrats on other issues, and show leadership for the state. Instead, he’s spending 9/11 this year with Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, is a fanatical supporter of the Iraq war, further military adventures in Iran, and is generally so far off the Democratic agenda on nearly everything else, I want him to switch parties. At least that would be honest.

He’s also taking lessons from Republicans on how to run government. According to a new GAO reports, DHS is a mess. While Sen. Lieberman is holding hearings, I doubt he will criticize the President. Anything but that, and anything but pinning the incompetence on the folks in charge for the bulk of the lifetime of DHS.

Democrats that voted for Lieberman, what the heck were you thinking?

This was going to just be a video post, but after watching the clips several times, a couple of thoughts seem worth sharing. First, the clips, found via Atrios’s blog and My Left Nutmeg.

First, Webb’s comments on the war:

Now the shouting match (and, as the folks at C&L said, Graham really looks like he overloaded on the caffeine this morning…):

Ugh. So, two U.S. Senators go on TV and the best we get is this bullshit. I will say again, I am tired of this type of news show. We need stronger moderators than someone like Russert who sits by and lets things degrade into a shouting match.

In particular, a couple of points stand out to me and are worth tying together with this video.

First, Graham’s question about whether Webb has been to Iraq is bull and should be called out as such. Graham goes to Iraq visiting troops selected to see him and he goes as part of a little traveling show. More importantly, Webb would never have had a chance to go because he wasn’t a Senator until quite recently. It’s not like they even let reporters go over there and interview soldiers as they want. This is not Vietnam, and the military is exerting more control over the presentation we get here.

Second, on the issue of re-enlistment. I would love to have Graham finish his thought. Why are they re-enlisting? Seriously, I would love to know that. I have seen numerous, varied reports putting the reasons all over the place, but political considerations haven’t really been on that list. After spending a few hours searching around, it’s clear to me that no one actually knows, or at least isn’t reporting about it. For example, going through Stars and Stripes, I found a lot of voices with differing opinions about re-enlistment. A story from 2003 with a re-enlistment NCO spells out his opinions on why people go back. I found a military wife who was proud her husband re-enlisted in 2003 even without a bonus because he believed in what he’s doing. Flipping through letters to the editor in Stars and Stripes shows a pretty wide array of opinions.

My point is that Graham brought that up as bait, as if the act of re-enlistment was an endorsement of policy and president. It is just as likely to be neither (enlistment bonuses are up, troops don’t want to let down their brothers-in-arms, etc.). Graham was simply using it as a debating tactic rather than a substantive point and that’s stupid.

This also goes toward the larger issue with information from Iraq. There is so much effort being expended criticizing sources of news out of Iraq, with right leaning folks like the one I linked to above only trusting the military, and with left leaning folks only trusting non-military and non-Fox sources (and barely, at that). Ultimately, we end up with little information that we (either side) can trust. Journalism out of the area is pretty bare, as well. Often, I wonder about whether it’s good we get our info from TV… in large part, TV news requires a filter of a face and voice we can understand (e.g. no major accent, etc.). At least with print, accents aren’t an issue and translations are understandable as long as the language is understood.

Regardless of that aside, though, reporting is a big part of another of Graham’s assertions. He stated quite loudly that Iran is killing our men and women over there. Today, however, a report by the LA Times highlights that the U.S. has captured more Saudis among the foreign fighters in Iraq than any other nationality. More than Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. E&P has more on the story, but it puts some question marks onto why we don’t criticize Saudi Arabia in the same way we criticize Iran. The report, by the way, oddly leaves out the percentage of Iranian fighters captured, something that would seem to be relevant. Based on the percentages left over and assuming that a non-significant portion come from other places like Jordan, that means Iran would be second. Again, it’s unclear from the report, so that makes that a bit odd in my mind. Webb brought this up during the shouting match, though it was drowned out by Graham’s ranting.

Of course, the biggest issue I have with clips like these is that while they feel good to those of us debating the political realities of a withdrawal/redeployment vote, the fact is they’re quite useless to the debate. So, it’s unsurprising to me to see this clip getting a lot of play on blogs of both sides with headlines like “Sen. Webb (D-VA) levels the warmongers” (not to pick on MLN particularly). It might feel good, but it’s pretty useless on the debate at hand. The clip does make Graham look like a petulant child and that was surprising as well as disappointing, but it didn’t inform me at all. I think that’s true of the whole debate.

For what it’s worth, I am in favor of a redeployment of U.S. troops the way Murtha and company described a year or so ago. Draw down and maintain an over-the-horizon presence to help the Iraqis in limited ways. I have come to that position after considering two issues that get little actual discussion outside of a partisan frame. First, the President is unwilling to admit mistakes on any front beyond the sort of general hand-waving, “Mistakes have been made” sort of way. While I have faith in the abilities of our military generals, I don’t believe it’s honest to say that they’re defining the mission. They’re defining it within a pretty narrow set of guidelines imposed by the civilian leadership. I don’t have faith in this president or the judgement of his staff, and all the good intentions and nobility in the world can’t counteract stupidity at the top.

Second, no one has made a convincing case that what happens in Iraq will be more important to the national security of the United States than what happens in Afghanistan, the border region with Pakistan, and in Iran. There is little doubt in my mind that a draw down of U.S. troops in Iraq would allow us to put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and to apply more tactical resources to the real war on real terrorists. How anyone can look at Iraq as a “central front in the war on terror” after reading that al-Qaeda is at it’s strongest level since 2001 is amazing to me. They’re not there. The people that attacked us on 9/11 are not in Iraq. They never were, and the decision to open up a second front in Iraq was absurdly stupid. There’s not a nice way to say that.

That’s not to say that we won’t have to deal with the consequences of leaving Iraq, not the least of which will be the well being of those Iraqis who sided with the U.S. and assisted our troops there. Asylum and evacuation might be a requirement, and should be something that’s part of any redeployment decision.

Anyway, I’ve written enough ramble for today. My point simply is that we should be talking more about the last three paragraphs I’ve written above than counting how many times Graham and Joe Lieberman have visited the troops in Iraq, or why the troops are redeploying. Those are vapor debates meant to boost the standing of the politician uttering them rather than substantive points about the debate. Graham is right that what happens over the next 20-30 years will determine the value of the war, but he’s wrong to suggest that the only way to move forward is to stand by the President. I wish that would end up in the debate as well.

I’ll end with a slightly related topic, which is that local citizens are finally realizing that Joe Lieberman lied during the 2006 elections. He has no intention of following up on his promises during the campaign to help withdraw troops as early as possible and has, quite frankly, lost his connection to reality when it comes to Iraq policy. The editorial I linked above is worth reading in large part because the Courant endorsed Lieberman in 2006. They were wrong to do so, and I hope they realize that Lieberman is bad for our state.

The guy is so caught up in his own self-importance that he doesn’t even stop to understand what he, himself, is saying. This is a man who broke every promise he made to Democrats in CT during the last election. He has not taken one action to shorten the length of the war and has gone as far as spreading Republican propaganda from this administration about “progress” in Iraq. Now, he’s calling for bombing Iran which is fundamentally nuts.

It’s a crazy, crazy proposition, what Sen. Lieberman is calling for. Historical parallels abound. For example, when we were helping the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, what would a Soviet bombing run on our bases in Europe have accomplished? It would’ve made Americans more determined to defeat the Soviets and more likely to participate in the local conflict. A bombing run like that didn’t happen because the consequences and subsequent escalation would’ve outstripped it’s utility.

Sen. Lieberman is making these wild claims because he believes there won’t be any negative consequences of bombing Iranian bases in Iranian sovereign territory. Whether this is out of some macho appreciation of our military strength or a failure to recognize basic geopolitical reality is unclear, but it’s clear his judgement is flawed. He has no mention of the cost, and his appreciation of the consequences is weak at best:

“So what I’m saying is, if we knock out a base of theirs, if we have to do that, at which they’re training these terrorists, yes, they may respond. But look, they’re already on the move against us, and they’re killing people as a result of it. I hope this is not necessary.”

All of these comes at a time when the Iranian economy may be killing itself anyway, and where the repressive regime is beginning to further crack down on the local populace. These things could be used to drive a wedge in Iranian internal politics, to help boost the voices of those sympathetic with the interests of peace in the region. All Liebermans brash, uninformed, and fundamentally ignorant comments do is strengthen the position of the hard liners in the Iranian government.

There’s also this. When you’re on the side of Dick Cheney instead of Condoleezza Rice on any debate, you’re in the wrong, especially when it comes to a consideration of using force. What about Cheney’s demonstrated judgement in the last 6 years would leave you with any confidence? For that matter, what of Lieberman’s demonstrated judgement would inspire confidence at all?

She’s our state representative and neighbor, and she gave a very personal and touching testimony about what this act means to her. Take a look:

It baffles me how the basic, human side of this debate gets lost in high-minded rhetoric from the religious right. This is a simple situation, fairly common and obvious to those who know any gay people.

I just saw on CNN that Bush is now attacking Congress for delaying funding for the troops as they are sending him bills he claims he will certainly veto. In particular, he is apparently now counting the days since he submitted the supplemental funding request for the Iraq war. Oddly enough, the 57 days that have gone by are apparently a terrible delay now, but the 86 and 119 days the Republican-led 109th Congress took in 2005 and 2006 were worthy of praise.

Bush’s speech reeks of the politics he claims Democrats are bringing to the process. While his defense of his position is entirely framed in political considerations, mentioning Democrats in every sentence, the actions taken by Congress actually create policy. They have implemented a policy shift, a deadline for troop withdrawal with ways to extend if necessary. Let’s debate this. Let’s talk about why those conditions are bad or good.

The President isn’t making any arguments defending his veto plans. There’s no attempt to make an argument that actually makes sense. It’s the same fear-mongering he has relied on since he became President. Unspecified harm to soldiers, unspecified risk to the nation, which must be true simply because he has pronounced it so.

As usual, his arguments are dishonest. The troops have funding until mid-summer. They’re not waiting for anything, as our experiences in 2005 and 2006 show. Bush is a hypocrite and a liar of the worst sort. He makes these claims that are so transparently false. He knows people will catch it, so why does he keep doing it? And since he lies so transparently on these simple, obvious issues, why should we believe anything else he says?

If you had to rank the Presidents, where would President George W. Bush end up on the list? After looking at his domestic and foreign policy initiatives, there’s a strong case that he is the worst ever. Measured simply against his desired or stated outcomes, based on speeches or public comments, he has been particularly bad at delivering what he promises.

As a rough starting point, I’ve outlined the major policy initiatives of both Bush terms along with a grade from -5 to 5 where 5 is absolute success and -5 indicates he achieved the opposite result of his proposed aim. A score of 0 indicates he didn’t do anything (no cost and no benefit on this policy issue). I specifically am avoiding whether I think the policies constitute good policy or not. I’m also avoiding whether I agree with the policy or not.

I know this list isn’t complete, so I’d love to expand on it. Feel free to leave those ideas in the comments below as well.

Domestic Policy Agenda

Office of Faith-Based Initiatives - Score: 2 - Former insiders have claimed that the office is more a political prop and showpiece than an actual, functioning White House department. He gets points for creating this and not getting sued to oblivion and for inspiring state level departments in Republican states.

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - Score: 3 - This passed, though it seemed targeted at helping big pharma as much as senior citizens. Folks are finding the donut hole a rude surprise and many complained about the complexity of the plan. The combined effect has taken the shine off of this plan.

No Child Left Behind - Score: -1 - In terms of achieving it’s actual goals, little has actually changed for public schools. In fact, there’s little positive to report. On top of that, school takeovers and privatization have not yielded improved results. The costs to states has been high, especially since the federal funding has been insufficient or non-existent.

Social Security Reform - Score: -5 - Far from actually reforming anything, the President convinced the majority of Americans that doing nothing was preferable to doing something about Social Security. Further, it provided a rallying point for Democrats and showed the first signs of weakness in the Republican stronghold. All of this doesn’t actually matter for the score, though. It’s a -5 because the policy failed to address any recommendations of the various blue ribbon panels while his other spending agendas have raised the stakes for Social Security in the years to come.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Christian fundamentalism - Score: 2 - On gay marriage and abortion, Bush has continued to deliver nominal victories but little actual policy change. The most significant impact of his two terms will be the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Their impact on these issues has yet to be seen (I remain unconvinced that either will rule in any way that will eliminate Roe v. Wade), but these appointments will have lasting impacts upon many different issues. He’s passed precious few laws and merely maintained the status quo on both major issues beyond those appointments. DOMA was the law of the land from the Clinton years and gay marriage is still not recognized at the federal level and abortions are still free of federal interference. Large sums of money have been spent on abstinence-only sex ed programs with poor results. I can’t think of a success here, actually.

Foreign Policy

The Global War on Terror (or whatever it’s called now) - Score: -2 - Terrorism incidents are up over the last few years. Iraq is a mess and far from a beacon of stability in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden still runs free. Iran has not shifted from their support of terrorist organizations. Hezbollah and Hamas have won elections largely because the Bush administration doesn’t understand how these organizations become popular. Our foreign policy has helped those organizations become stronger and more popular. The Bush administrations prioritization prior to 9/11 significantly misjudged the world, and their actions since have hardly demonstrated any improved judgement.

North Korea - Score: -4 - Since declaring them to be part of the “Axis of Evil” North Korea has tested a nuclear device and largely ignored diplomatic overtures from Europe. Six party talks have been largely unsuccessful. Far from containing North Korea with strong rhetoric, North Korea has stood defiant. North Korea now could have an impact on negotiations with Iran.

Iran - Score: -4 - Inexplicably ignored until the Iraq invasion imploded, Iran has gained prestige on the world stage because of Bush administration policy. There’s really not a worse outcome for our Iran policy.

Etc.

Overall, he’s done a great job of message control and information management. Beyond that, I find little to be proud of. Have I missed anything? Leave it in the comments.

Glenn Greenwald provides a decent recap and summary of a controversy about a source used by AP when reporting an episode of sectarian violence. The story was remarkable because it quoted an Iraqi police captain who recounted that nearby Iraqi soldiers did not intervene to stop the Shiite militiamen. The captain was quoted by name. You can read more about the controversy at Greenwald’s blog, but the end result is that the right wing blogs were full of hot air. They were completely and totally wrong on this but refuse to apologize to AP or admit they were wrong.

As Greenwald points out, the episode is more telling about the way these blogs operate and how they integrate into the national media than most people realize. While Greenwald focuses on the bloggers who are not afraid to make stuff up, this is a larger issue that carries throughout all media platforms. From Michelle Malkin and others in the blogs to folks like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh on radio to Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly, the entire right wing media establishment is rife with people like this and episodes like this.

The Greenwald post is long, but I urge you to read it. After you’re done, think back to every Clinton era scandal. Then remember that every single one of the Clinton’s supposed scandals led nowhere. Not one panned out. The scandal that eventually brought Clinton to impeachment was not one invented by the right wing media establishment…

These people are not afraid to make stuff up, and they leave a lasting impression.

I had someone make an Al Gore/Internet joke to me the other day. It still persists even though the guy never said he invented the Internet. That came from a Republican press release the day after and was mutated and mutilated by Rush and company until Leno and Letterman made it a national given.

It’s likely that the perception created by the made up scandals and the intentional misquotes cost Gore votes. Imagine a world where a man like Gore, who has more integrity and intelligence than Bush, was running foreign policy. Afghanistan would be a better place, a better effort would’ve been made to seal off Tora Bora when bin Laden tried to escape (maybe we’d have him), and we wouldn’t be in Iraq.

Who says correcting partisan bullshit doesn’t matter? It matters.

Nancy Pelosi isn’t wasting any time in trying to get Congress to be better behaved in 2007:

Democrats will adopt and then amend the House Rules package tomorrow to ban all travel paid for by lobbyists or organizations that employ lobbyists, require the ethics committee to pre-approve travel paid for by outside groups, enact a total gift ban, and require lawmakers to pay the market cost of flying on a corporate jet, said Democratic staffers and officials with government watchdog groups.

And, because they feel they lost the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit vote because GOP leaders held it open for three hours, during which they flipped opponents into the “yes” column, Democrats will include a provision in the rules to prevent any sort of repetition, said aides to incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Democrats also will eliminate the practices of changing conference reports after members have signed them and excluding elected members from conference committees.

…

Democrats complained vociferously about the House GOP’s tactics during the past four years, such as preventing Democrats from offering amendments on the House floor, excluding them from conference committees, and holding votes open for much longer than the traditional 15 minutes.

…

In addition to revising ethics rules, the Democratic majority on Friday will debate and vote on procedural and budgetary reforms — measures to ensure that members have 24 hours to review legislation, earmark reforms and pay-as-you-go requirements — said senior Democratic aides.

There’s more, read the rest.

You’ll hear Republican whining about a “Minority Bill of Rights” which Nancy Pelosi introduced in 2004. The interesting thing is that it includes most of the same language as the Democrat’s larger ethics reform bill. We’ll see if the Republicans line up to support Pelosi’s larger, more comprehensive version this time. As it stands, they’re just whining about getting the same treatment they gave the Democrats without acknowledging their own duplicity in the matter.

I’m actually impressed and the cynic in me is surprised. I believe the Democrats will be better, but if they’re able to live up to the ideals expressed in this reform package, our government will be more open and our nation better for it.