Senate Republicans held together, mostly, to stop the Democrats’ stimulus package from passing, according to the NY Times:

The measure was opposed by Republican leaders who said the Democrats added too many costly provisions, including an extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits for the coal industry and increased subsidies for home energy costs.

The total cost of the Senate plan came to about $204 billion over two years, or about $40 billion more than the House version.

Stopping this bloated giveaway extravaganza is a good thing. 

(more…)

Arlen Specter wants to hold the NFL accountable for destroying tapes related to the New England Patriots cheating scandal. No law, federal or local prohibits one team from filming the signals of another. Nor does any law prohibit the destruction of such tapes. And yet, Arlen Specter is brave enough to stand up to the oppressive regime known as the NFL and demand justice.

I, for one, am glad that members of congress are finally realizing that illegal drug use in Major League Baseball is not the only urgent matter facing this nation. We have major companies audaciously creating and enforcing their own rules as best they see fit. What’s next? Businesses firing employees for company theft without first having the matter reviewed by a member of congress? I mean, if companies are allowed to create and enforce their own rules within the context of the law but without explicit federal approval, our system will function far too smoothly and congress might have to address such dead-end issues as healthcare and the economy.

I shiver at such a thought. Thankfully, Arlen Specter is here to help our nation keep its eye on the ball.

Washington Whispers reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma” session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town.

It seems that the left side of the blogosphere suddenly likey Harry Reid.

It’s a bit sad that it’s necessary but a good call by Reid. It is not often that I agree with what Reid wants and / or does, but this is a good decision.

The US Senate approved the Iraq war spending bill, calling for US troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as July 1.

I am still waiting for the Democrats how they think a mass slaughter can be prevented once the US withdraws.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans are working towards a compromise.

Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers began to weigh alternatives to the legislation’s most contentious provision, the binding withdrawal terms. The goal is to be more flexible but still restrain how Bush conducts the war…

The provision most likely to survive the next round is a set of political and diplomatic benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The language all but certain to be dropped, or at least diluted, would require troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1. Another sticking point is the bill’s $21 billion worth of domestic spending, which Bush and some Republicans have protested as pork.

A significant number of Republicans support the benchmarks — possibly enough to override a second veto, should Bush resort to that. The measures would prod Baghdad officials to build up military forces, crack down on militias and sectarian violence, protect minority rights and manage Iraq’s extensive petroleum reserves.

Meanwhile, General Patraeus said that “espite an increase in troop levels, the overall violence in Iraq has not declined, and he warned that U.S. casualties may increase in the coming months.”

He added: “This effort may get harder before it gets easier. It is an endeavor, again, that is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time.”

There is one major problem: the ‘enormous commitment’ isn’t there. Democrats, and quite some Republicans, and the majority of the American people so it seems, do not want to be in Iraq for much longer.

I wish that the debate would be about what’s best for Iraq. They are talking about “getting our troops out,” okay, fair enough, I understand that, but… what about all those Iraqis who do not want the violence to continue but cannot stop it all by themselves? What about those Iraqis who did not ask the US to invade, but the US - leading a coalition of the willing - did so anyway? What about them? Are these people suggesting abandoning them?

“Our troops can’t get in the middle of a civil war,” is one of the things one hears quite often. Perhaps it is time to remember those who say this that without US intervention there would be no civil war. Whether you opposed the war or supported it… one has to look at the situation today.

I am repeating myself, I am aware of that, but the reason for that is that I find it increasingly worrisome and frustrating. They are talking about the US troops, about the US military, about the US deficit… but they are not talking about the Iraqi people anymore. My point? The tone of the debate is wrong. They are leaving one important aspect out of the entire debate.

Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting column about the war in Iraq for today’s Washington Post. Dionne writes:

This is not really an argument over the “surge” of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we want to make an open-ended commitment to keeping combat forces in Iraq for many years or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two.

Even if the surge succeeds in a narrow sense — by reducing the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence in Baghdad — there is no guarantee that the overall situation in Iraq will be any better, no guarantee that Iraqi leaders will take the political steps necessary to end the internecine killing and create a stable government, no guarantee that we will make progress against al-Qaeda.

Very, very true and ‘we’ should way the risks against the potential for success very carefully, ‘we’ should include all major factors, but one of those factors that has to be included is… yes, the Iraqi people. Dionne too, does not mention them in his column.

Also read this article at NRO by Joseph Morrison Skelly.

David Broder wrote a very interesting column for the Washington Post about… Harry Reid. Broder’s thesis: Reid is just as incompetent as Alberto Gonzales.

Here’s a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats — a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered ” Harry Reid,” give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

President Bush’s highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had “increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.”
[…]
On “Fox News Sunday,” Schumer offered this clarification of Reid’s off-the-cuff comment. “What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost — in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this — we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that’s been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can’t win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win.”

Wait - so the war is lost but can still be won? That means that it’s not lost then, is it? If something is lost, one cannot possibly win it anymore.

Broder:

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word “is” has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Broder then gives some examples of other, umh, slips of the tongue from Reid, like, o, say, calling George W. Bush a “loser;” Alan Greenspan, “one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington” (looks who’s talking); and saying that Frist has “no institutional integrity”, because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge.

Of course, Reid later had to apologize for these remarks.

Josh Marshall rightfully points out that Gonzales is - still - much worse than Reid (for one thing, Gonzales has probably been lying about certain matters), but Broder’s main point still stands: Reid is incompetent. He is causing too much controversies, he is not careful enough, he is pandering to the base about matters like abortion, when exposed he contradicts himself and makes no sense whatsoever… He says things that do not just hurt him, but the Democratic Party as a whole…

I do not quite understand why the Democrats elected Reid to be their leader in the Senate. Surely there must be better candidates out there?

(Of course there are - the Dems also have some great politicians)

Also read this post by Ed Morrissey: he exposes and debunks, what he calls, “the five myths of Reid. In his update, he links to this story: Republican Duncan Hunter called on Reid to resign as Senate Majority Leader.

Boy o boy, how the Democrats are hurting themselves. It is unbelievable. Whether one agrees with what Republicans are saying and doing right now or not, one has to admit one thing: Reid has caused this problem himself by acting stupid.

I once heard that if the Democrats can be trusted to do one thing, it is to lose, when it seems impossible for them to do so. Is that what we see happening right now? Granted, the Republican noise machine is in full swing and jumps on everything that the Democrats do, but point is: the Dems should not provide political opponents with so much ammunition.

Well, well, well, the House Judiciary Committee voted, 32 to 6, to grand immunity to former aide to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling. The Committee also, immediately, subpoenad her, although most members (still) hope that she will be testify voluntarily (fat chance). Representative John Conyers: “I do not propose this step lightly. We can always stop the process before the court issues an order.”

Besides the House Committee, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee was also meeting to consider subpoenas in the continuing investigation of the firings. The Senate panel voted to authorize a subpoena of Sara Taylor, the White House political affairs director, to get around what Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the panel, called White House “stonewalling”.’

It is becoming more and more serious. I repeat what I said when this story broke: if Gonzales / the White House would have admitted to having made mistakes, share (most of) what happened, etc. this controversy would have died a quick death. Now, however, the behavior of “Gonzo” et al. encouraged Democrats (the media and, yes, Republicans) to dig deeper and… well, it has already hurt Bush, Gonzales, Rove, etc. tremendously, and it will damage them / their reputation even more.

According to quite some people Goodling was at the very center of everything: she was the weakest link. She knows exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened, who decided what, etc. If Goodling testifies, well, it seems to me that Gonzales, Bush and Rove will get very nervous.

In the past, I wrote that Goodling should not be granted immunity. I still stand by that… mostly. First and foremost, I think that it is incredibly sad that people who are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the American people, to serve them, are only willing to answer the questions of the people they are supposed, are only willing to be accountable, if they are granted immunity for everything they possibly did / are doing wrong. Second: how do they know that she won’t lie to protect, not her legal status, but her reputation? They don’t, they can’t.

That being said, it seems to be necessary to this. So, as such, if they want to know what really happened, this is the logical, albeit cynical, step to make.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a real subpoena frenzy going on now: the House Oversight Committee also approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice.

By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration’s claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Some would say: “finally, some real oversight,” others would say: “dear God, here comes the whitch hunt.”

And both sides would be right.

H/t Shaun.

Dana Milbank wrote a good, interesting article for the Washington Post about Kyle Sampson’s testimony yesterday. Sampson seemed to be willing to take one for the team, but made matters worse for Gonzales nonetheless when he confessed that Gonzales’ testimony wasn’t accurate.

As Prairie Weather points out, “Speaking of falling on swords, what seems to be happening is mass hari kiri on the part of Republicans.”

An ‘accident’ happened as well: Schumer was informed that Republicans objected to the hearings continuing, so he interrupted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was questioning Sampson. When Schumer said “we’ve just received word that the Republicans have objected, under the Senate rules, to this meeting continuing”, to which Grassley replied “does it apply to a Republican, too?”

Later, “Republicans blamed a procedural mistake in their cloakroom for the false alarm”.

Strangely, Sampson’s memory didn’t serve him well. “He used the phrase ‘I don’t remember’ a memorable 122 times.”

Damn. I cannot help but wonder how Sampson could ever have worked at the White House.

With such a memory, it is impossible to graduate from high school, let alone from University with a bachelor or master degree.