Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.

They can actually all be right, and nothing presented here notes that AP's retraction is incorrect (unless you have AP's re-retraction and are withholding it). The O's account does not show AP to be incorrect. Note what their correction says:

This version CORRECTS by DELETING Merkley from lawmakers who opposed Lieberman; Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.

It does NOT say that Merkley did not SPEAK OUT against Lieberman; it says he did not OPPOSE Lieberman. What would lead them to undertake a very specific correction to mean what Kari infers here, if in fact quite apparently Merkley DID speak up? And how could Politico (dismissed as relying on anonymous sources--which doesn't stop Kari from using other stories that rely on the same unknown sources) figure that he spoke FOR Lieberman--and as yet aren't correcting that?

What makes all three right is if Merkley indeed spoke out about hurt feelings and wrongs against the party--and then closed by saying, as Mapes quotes him, "this is not a time for retribution," and indicated he would vote to retain Lieberman. On a purely logical basis, why would you frame it as a question of retribution, say it's not time--and then vote retributively? In any case, in this scenario all three would be right: Merkley's right that he spoke out, AP's right that he did not oppose, and Politico is right that he ended up speaking FOR him, not against him.

All of which seems an awful lot like HR2, in which Merkley perfected the art of discussing why the paper he was nonetheless about to sign was so very wrong and misguided. It's a bad war!--but I'm voting yes. Lieberman is a bad man!--but I'm voting to keep him.

And nobody can call themselves a "better Democrat" who bought Lieberman's frame of punishment rather than simple accountability. He wasn't to be stripped; he was to be REPLACED by someone better--someone who was more aligned with the party on the issues to come before his committee, and someone who had done the work that is obligatory and dispositive in 99% of the other chair decisions the Senate makes. On that score, many more Senators beyond ours missed the boat.

"The vast majority of the time he votes with us."

Not on the issues predominantly before his committee..

"He made a mistake this time and will suffer for it"

When? Surely you don't mean by losing some sub-committee chair he didn't even care about.

"f you don't think Rahm made it clear to Lieberman (and I have heard inside information that says it was so) that he will be in our court you're out of your mind."

What stick do they plan to use? What possible enforcement tool do they have left? They just stuck him in there for two years, pretty much no matter what. He's never going to stab the party in the back any worse than he did this year; if they didn't enforce their rules then, why later?

"It's called being magnanimous in victory people "

So you'd be OK if McCain were made Homeland Security Chair instead? That'd be magnanamous too. How about Inhofe for Environment, while we're at it? Team of Rivals, baby!

"You don't get it do you? You think Barack Obama is supposed to be some hyperpartisan payback for 8 years of Bush? You obviously didn't pay attention to his message. Back off buddy."

No, it never had anything to do with payback. That's Lieberman's frame. It has to do with rewarding those who do a good job and work to build the party. Lieberman did an absolutely criminal job as Chair, and did the opposite from every other Senator eligible for that position. It's not punishment; it's accountability. The plum jobs go to the Senators who can work with leadership on those issues before their committee, and who have worked hardest to support Democrats. Lieberman has done neither. It's an insult to the good Senators to simply ignore that.

"Don't think we won because of a "liberal" message."

Beg pardon? So that whole trickle-up, card check, green jobs, war-ending, torture-stopping spiel from Obama--that was all bullshit? Because that sure looks like a liberal message, and that's exactly what people voted for. They want government to do more, and they want stuff to get done. With Lieberman blocking the Democrats from Homeland Security, we will not see the change we were promised and worked so hard for.

It is a grave mistake to fall victim to Republican framing of "hyperpartisanship." This had nothing to do with it. And now that he's off the hook, what possible incentive does he have to toe the line now? A severed monkey head? Ha, ha. No, what really? Seriously.

torridjoe: It does NOT say that Merkley did not SPEAK OUT against Lieberman; it says he did not OPPOSE Lieberman.

And that is incorrect. The AP has no knowledge of how Jeff Merkley voted: yea or nay. It is quite possible that he did indeed OPPOSE Lieberman. There were 13 negative votes in the caucus. Not 2.

I know you really want to dislike Senator Merkley, torridjoe. He beat your beloved primary candidate. But cut the man a break. He is indeed a better Democrat - and with balls to, being the only freshman Senator to take a public stand on such a controversial issue.

Americans don't want war, they don't like torture...

That's not the way Joe Lieberman's been operating as head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee the past two years. He's been all for the war and the torture. That's why some people thought he should be removed from the chairmanship.

But what can you expect from people who thought he'd make a good vice president in 2000?

For months now, I've been telling people that Obama will redefine the Center, despite all of the yammering from both ends of the political spectrum. None of us know where exactly that will be, but we all know that it won't be defined by comparing positions with any current paradigm.

I find this to be hugely refreshing.......

One emerging point is that January 20th will be The Beginning and Obama will give everyone a chance to get on the train, regardless of past behavior.

Don't be fooled by all of the conciliatory talk on the front end. The first time someone in the administration or congress breaks discipline, you'll get a chance to see Obama's ruthless side. I'm not talking about principled opposition, but rather about leaks, broken bargains, etcetera.

There are a few people in Illinois and in the recent presidential campaign that have seen the teeth, and they are no longer in doubt. At a point, per Machiavelli, a couple of the worst offenders will be taken up to the tower and pitched out of the window in front of the assembled populous.

An indication is found in the selection of Eric Holder who assisted with the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

Greenwald and I conditionally disagree.

No none of that is a liberal message. You're so screwed up over the last 8 years you don't know that it's the American message. Americans don't want war, they don't like torture and they like making money...that isn't a liberal message. It's the freaking American dream. The GOP twisted that and scared the piss out of America for years. Americans simply told them to shove it.

Yes! Exactly!

Let us stipulate that both combatants for the Senate seat in this year's primary are "Better Democrats."

Agreed!

Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 19, 2008 7:31:31 AM

Echo.

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 19, 2008 7:56:19 AM

Echo.

Well said, both of you!

spiro... "more and better democrats" has been a netroots slogan for over a year now. I suggest reading my entire post -- through the clip from Stoller.

For the record, Daniel, your later interpretation of what I wrote is exactly correct. Had Steve Novick won the primary and the general election, I would have been proud to have him as my US Senator.

Oh, and I used the word "to" instead of "too", which was grammatically correct. Bleah. I type too fast to catch these things.

The story keeps changing:

Sources on Capitol Hill say there was little to no opportunity for Senators angry at their recalcitrant colleague to fully register their disagreements. Only one resolution -- one that kept Lieberman in his post but took away his position on an environmental and public works committee -- came to the floor, and it clearly had the support to pass. Senators could voice their displeasure or vote nay. But in the end, as one aide says, "the meeting was theater."

"And that is incorrect. The AP has no knowledge of how Jeff Merkley voted: yea or nay. "

On what basis do you make this claim? How do you know he did not state his position during the caucus? Very clearly they believe they have SOME credible way to make this claim, since they went to the unpalatable trouble of correcting the record to state it so.

Your strawman attempt runs out of gas when it comes to the large cross-section of people saying exactly the same things I am, who don't appear to have been major Novick supporters. But enjoy your crutch; I'm sure you'll whip it out any time during the next 6 years when Merkley does something stupid--it wasn't stupid; they're just haters.

"Torridjoe you really have very little grasp politics wise do you? Go spend some time outside of Oregon."

You mean beyond the 27 years I spent outside of Oregon? You can accuse me of not understanding politics, but it's damn sure clear that Lieberman gets it, which makes this paragraph absurd: "It's all about politics and you obviously don't know how to play them. When you're sitting close to 60 you don't skewer a guy who will sit in your caucus if he gets to maintain his seat. He agreed to things to maintain that seat behind the scenes I'll guarantee you. Lieberman is no Republican."

I'm sure he agreed to all kinds of things. What motivates him to keep those promises, having broken so many others without consequence? And what does having 60 seats have to do with having 60 votes? Do you REALLY believe that in a vote to set a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, Joe will be the 60th vote to bust the filibuster? Yeah, sure.

The idea that Lieberman would do anything but caucus with the Democrats is just plain stupid. There's no upside for him, only downside.

And this makes no sense whatsoever: "No none of that is a liberal message. You're so screwed up over the last 8 years you don't know that it's the American message."

I'm fully aware it's the American message--one that happens to completely agree with liberal principles. The whole center-right thing you're trying to push just doesn't pass the smell test, unless you believe that an overwhelming number of voters voted for "the most liberal Senator" in the Senate, expecting Republican-lite policy. You do remember the word "change" being bandied about, right? Leaving Lieberman to fuck things up is not change; it's exactly what we had last term.

On what basis do you make this claim? How do you know he did not state his position during the caucus? Very clearly they believe they have SOME credible way to make this claim, since they went to the unpalatable trouble of correcting the record to state it so.

The fact that it was a meeting closed to the press, for starters.

Since they've since corrected the correction, clearly they didn't know the story in the first place.

Since they've since corrected the correction, clearly they didn't know the story in the first place.

Or someone typed it in wrong. Or someone gave them incorrect information. For that matter, you can't even be sure that the correction is accurate or that Merkley was there, apart from unverifiable statements.

Or someone typed it in wrong. Or someone gave them incorrect information. For that matter, you can't even be sure that the correction is accurate or that Merkley was there, apart from unverifiable statements.

Sure I can. I can ask Merkley's office.

I'm sure he agreed to all kinds of things. What motivates him to keep those promises, having broken so many others without consequence?

Given that he could lose the gavel at any time--and he seems to CRAVE that shit, he's got a lot of incentive to toe the line Obama and the leadership ask.

What boggles my mind about this is that, according to Merkley spokeswoman Julie Edwards in the PolitickerOR report Kari refers to is that the plan to remove Lieberman from the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee was only brewing in the Senate since Lieberman started campaigning for John McCain.

For two years, since the Democratic voters of Connecticut chose someone else as their nominee and the Senate Dems decided to hold onto Lieberman by letting him keep the chair in order to maintain their thin presumed majority, the guy has done nothing in terms of oversight in his committee.

For half of the final term of the Bush administration, one of the most powerful committees in the Senate -- with jurisdiction over most of the Homeland Security department, the National Archives, the budget, the census, the civil service, governmental records, the District of Columbia, nuclear exports, organization of the executive branch, the postal service, and classification of government employees, among other things has just lain fallow. Nothing about the government response to Hurricane Katrina, nothing about whether DHS is actually effective, nothing about chemical plant security, nothing about the White House end run around mandatory records laws, nothing about whether the vice-president is actually a fourth branch of the government unto himself. Lieberman hasn't been doing his job.

Supposedly, he was left in place in 2006 because he was needed in the Senate, but not only did he fail as chairman of his committee, he turned around and attacked the people who kept him on. So naturally the thing to do is keep him on longer.

Some people really never learn.

Sure I can. I can ask Merkley's office.

I could call them too, but how do you know that what they're telling you is any more accurate than what the Senate staffers who talked to the AP or PolitickerOR or any other of the varying news reports said? The casual observer certainly won't find out which way Merkley voted.

Merkley spokeswoman Julie Edwards would not say if Merkley voted to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship,

So there's no telling how he voted, and his spokesperson only talked about how unhappy he was about Lieberman's comments during the campaign and nothing about what a failure Joe's been as chairman. Maybe he did. maybe he didn't, but all I'm seeing is a conventional wisdom approach to the issue, not change I can believe in.

And before you all blow yourself up into Macy's balloon-sized animals, I'm not claiming that anyone else would have done this differently. Merkley's the senator-elect. He's the one who's going to have to take the heat for his decisions. I'm going to hold him just as accountable as I'd hold Wyden.

Given that he could lose the gavel at any time

If they wouldn't take his gavel away for being a miserable failure as chairman for two years, why would they bother in the next two?

Not to mention, the process of removing Lieberman from the chairmanship before 2010 isn't something that can be done with a flick of Harry Reid's magic wand. Not that that is even likely.

The AP corrected their correction? When and where, Carla? It still says "Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman," bold as love on the original article...I even hit F5 to make sure the cache was freche.

On filibustering:

No, not on Iraq. But will he break a filibuster on health care, EFCA, USCT appointments, environmental issues, and a whole host of others?

But doesn't he already favor the Democratic position on those issues? Are you suggesting that the fear was that he'd turn on the American people and vote out of revenge, were he to be removed? If that's the case, then he should have simply been kicked out of the caucus altogether, and really expelled from the Senate. Threatening to vote counter to national interest, out of spite? Why would you want someone like that anywhere near a Senate seat?

"Given that he could lose the gavel at any time"

The chance that would happen during a session is near zero. If they don't have the balls to do it now, after this, Lieberman has a free pass all the way to 2010.

As an aside, Boxer has broken silence and declared her No vote on Joe. http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7571

Nothing holding Jeff back now! Someone else has broken whatever agreement was supposedly reached, if that in fact was the case.

You just want to shove it down the throat of America and hope there isn't a backlash.

You're wrong about that, Garrett. He doesn't care.

I'm just a lot more pragmatic about how I want to go about massively changing the ways things are done in America and so is Barack Obama. You just want to shove it down the throat of America and hope there isn't a backlash

So you agree that Obama has a liberal agenda proposed, then?

It's odd you say I want to shove it down the throat of America--which is untrue. America's already on board, quite clearly. It is CONGRESS that needs to have change shoved down its throat, because even after a huge mandate for reversing conservative policies and replacing them with liberal ones, they're still wallowing in the same clubbiness and status quo that the electorate has firmly rejected.

This was not a pragmatic decision, it was a gutless one. There is nothing practical about leaving someone who failed at his job, and literally attempted to raise a mutiny against his partners, to continue to do more damage. He's already smirking to the press, telling Katie he wasn't sanctioned at all. He knows he's won, and the rest of us have lost.

America voted to stop the gridlock. By retaining Lieberman, 43 Senators voted for continued gridlock in order not to sacrifice even the sham of collegiality. The only person who wanted to make this about retribution was Joe. The facts of the situation make it a clear case about competence, accountability and fair reward, instead. Why are we punishing Sen. Carper, who would have appeared to have been next in line for that seat? He's a total Blue Dog, votes his mind and it's not always with leadership--but he's not a liar and someone who uses his vote as a cudgel against the Democratic Party. And he works to support his brothers and sisters through party building. It's like giving the D student the free period hall pass, when 5 other kids got As. It makes no sense whatsoever.

"You're wrong about that, Garrett. He doesn't care. "

But we CAN'T take bold steps to save the country from economic ruin just yet, President Roosevelt! What if we go too far and they elect Alf Landon next time?? We'd better do what Alf wants now, to prevent that.

If they wouldn't take his gavel away for being a miserable failure as chairman for two years, why would they bother in the next two?

You mean besides the stunningly obvious fact that for two years Lieberman caucusing with the Dems effectively neutered Cheney's tie-breaking role, and thus giving control of the Senate to the Dems?

(begin sarcasm) I know, I know... whomever controls the Senate is of such little consequence that I hesitate to even bring it up. I mean, I'm sure that Cheney and the Republicans would have handled everything exactly the same over the last two years... right? (end sarcasm)

If they wouldn't take his gavel away for being a miserable failure as chairman for two years, why would they bother in the next two?

Because on January 20th, the definition of they will change to they who support Obama's agenda.

If Lieber Joe plans to continue as the Likud Party senator at Homeland Security, we will be treated to a vaudeville act featuring him careening around the stage with the Rahmweiller attached to one of his ankles.

I wouldn't wish that fate on Sarah Palin..........

The AP corrected their correction? When and where, Carla? It still says "Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman," bold as love on the original article...

TJ, you're grasping at straws again. As I posted above, in my original post, an entirely new AP story (by a different reporter, I think) stated the opposite:

Senator-elect Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., was critical of Lieberman at the caucus and said afterward in a statement that he was "very personally disappointed by his conduct during the campaign." He wouldn't say how he voted on the resolution.

We could spend all day parsing the rather odd phrasing of the AP's correction, but I think we should take Jeff Merkely at his word. In his speech, he was critical of Lieberman. He's not saying how he voted, per a pledge he made to the caucus.

I think any reasonable person can read between those lines. But, of course, you're still welcome to imagine whatever you want.

Kevin:

You mean besides the stunningly obvious fact that for two years Lieberman caucusing with the Dems effectively neutered Cheney's tie-breaking role, and thus giving control of the Senate to the Dems?

Can you name one instance in the past two years where a Lieberman vote kept the Senate from a Cheney-inducing tie? Dick Durbin couldn't.

Pat Ryan:

If Lieber Joe plans to continue as the Likud Party senator at Homeland Security, we will be treated to a vaudeville act featuring him careening around the stage with the Rahmweiller attached to one of his ankles.

"Likud Party senator"? I don't know where the hell you're getting that. All Lieberman's been doing is acting as an adjunct member of the GOP, protecting the Bush administration. He's just going to go on preventing anyone else from using the committee to look into what's been going on in the government for the past eight years. Maybe that's not a problem for the collegial Democratic members of the Senate.

Leaving Lieberman in place is exactly the kind of ineffectual, hand-washing, cronyism that the Bush administration practiced in spades. Two more years of this kind of crap, combined with economic hard times and people are going to think that maybe the GOP wasn't so bad after all.

More on the process of removing Lieberman from the chairmanship now, i.e. "losing the gavel":

If Senate Democrats need to keep Lieberman happy for fear that he'll refuse to provide a 60th vote for shutting down Republican filibusters, but some future circumstance should arise that nonetheless requires Lieberman's removal from the chair, what are the chances that the Democrats will have a clear path to passing the resolution necessary to formalize that removal? Keep in mind that a resolution revising Lieberman's role hasn't necessarily got any changes in it that Republicans have any particular interest in seeing made. They've already gotten the best deal available, and changing the lineup at Homeland Security profits them nothing. So if Lieberman's behavior is such that the Democrats decide to revoke his chairmanship during the course of the 111th Congress (and God only knows what he'll have to do to finally drive them to that decision, but presumably it'd be behavior disadvantaging Democrats and helping Republicans), wouldn't the Republicans be quite content with filibustering the resolution naming his replacement? Who will be the 60th vote for cloture on that resolution? Surely the boast that Lieberman can be removed "at any time" is backed by a solid count of 60 Senators, right?

Hey Darrel:

Is that from KagroX on Kos? Your link is weird.

If they wouldn't take his gavel away for being a miserable failure as chairman for two years, why would they bother in the next two? You mean besides the stunningly obvious fact that for two years Lieberman caucusing with the Dems effectively neutered Cheney's tie-breaking role, and thus giving control of the Senate to the Dems?

I think what you're trying to assert is that I was suggesting they take away the gavel DURING the last two years, which I was not. I was referring to now, since he would only have actually served two years by next January. In other words, if they wouldn't remove him after how badly he performed this last term, why would they do so in the next term?

But I also think you harbor the mistaken impression that had Lieberman left at any time during the 110th Congress, the Democrats would have lost their majority. That's false; an organizing resolution is good for the full two years (at least they usually are written that way, and SR 27 and 28 were for the 110th). No matter who switches parties, the Democrats would have remained in the majority regardless. It would take a new resolution to overturn it, and of course the Democrats would still be in the majority under the old rules.

Similarly, to strip Lieberman during the 111th would be a reorganization, and would require another resolution--but while there'd be no point in filibustering the opening, already agreed upon organizing resolution that started the term, you damn well better believe the GOP would try to filibuster Lieberman's removal.

And Lieberman would be counted on as the 60th vote, to allow himself to be kicked off. Likely? Not so much.

(edit--I see Darrel has referenced some of the same points).

TJ, you're grasping at straws again. As I posted above, in my original post, an entirely new AP story (by a different reporter, I think) stated the opposite:

For that to be true, the article you're citing would have to state that Merkley DID oppose Lieberman's renewal, since their correction says explicitly he did not. Unless you're leaving that statement out for an unknown reason, you're misrepresenting that article.

AP's current position is that Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman. The article you cite shows Merkley SPOKE OUT against him, which is of course not at all the same thing--and which AP took pains NOT to correct. He was originally cited as speaking out in opposition. It was corrected to show that he was NOT in opposition--but they say nothing anymore about whether he spoke against him.

"I think any reasonable person can read between those lines."

And given that AP says he didn't oppose Lieberman, has not corrected it, Merkley has not corrected it, and indeed explained to Charles Pope that "this was not a time for retribution," the most reasonable conclusion is that Merkley in fact voted not to be retributive. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to say it's not the time for something--and then do exactly what you just said it wasn't time for.

The best evidence is that Merkley weaseled, frankly--spoke up to say how hurt he was, but then voted to keep him anyway. Past experience points to that as well.

AP's current position is that Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.

Based on the most current article, that is incorrect.

Kari is right. You're completely grasping at straws.

Gee, I wonder why?

torridjoe: AP's current position is that Merkley did NOT oppose Lieberman.

That was the "correction", prior to the "correction to the correction". As is typical of you, you choose to believe the "correction", rather than the correction to the correction.

You do not state any means by which the supposition you choose to believe (that Senator-elect Merkley secretly voted in favor of Lieberman) could be known by anyone. Instead, you immediately take the AP's poorly worded retraction as asserting something else they could not possibly know, because it fits into your angry, counterproductive, worldview.

Reading all your petty rants of juvenile alienation is quite tiresome. You know that?

Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 19, 2008 6:22:28 PM

I think what you're trying to assert is that I was suggesting they take away the gavel DURING the last two years, which I was not.

Take a deep breath, TJ.

Done? Good.

Now, do try to keep your own story straight. On the other thread you accused Carla of dodging and trying to make it about you instead. Here you're trying against all reason to make it about you.

I wasn't "trying to assert" that you'd said diddly squat because the comment was neither directed to you nor was it in response to anything you'd said. Unless, of course, you are sock-puppeting Darrel Plant...

You seriously need a vacation or something.

Is that from KagroX on Kos?

Carla, yes it is Kagro's diary from earlier. Sorry for the link problem.

I wasn't "trying to assert" that you'd said diddly squat because the comment was neither directed to you nor was it in response to anything you'd said. Unless, of course, you are sock-puppeting Darrel Plant...

What kind of paranoid crazy person would even make such an out-of-right-field delusional suggestion?

Oh, yeah. It's Kevin.

I don't care how Merkley voted on Lieberman. ... I don't care how Wyden voted on Lieberman, either. That said, I do care a lot about how well the new congress will perform. We all should.

In specific, I don't care how they voted on Lieberman, either. I really didn't expect the Senate to do anything about removing Lieberman from the post he's been failing to fulfill the duties of any more than I expected them to impeach George W. Bush. Leaving incompetent "friends" in place is the norm in the political arena.

But Wyden's and Merkley's votes on this issue and other issues are indicative of the kind of oversight they, as one fiftieth of the Senate, will provide and support. There's been an enormous burden of crap placed on this country the past eight years, and senators can either work to expose and rectify it or they can look away and pretend it never happened.

Well Harry, since the very beginning, President-elect Obama promised to try to bring this nation together: Democrats, centrists, and Republicans. You're now surprised that after being elected, he isn't planning on alienating half the country by governing as a radical leftist?

Gee. Who could have guessed?

Obama is no George Bush or John McCain. But he's also no Hugo Chavez either.

Thank goodness.

Unfortunately, he is looking more and more like Bill Clinton without the marital infidelity problems

Which sounds pretty damn good to me.

Unfortunately, he is looking more and more like Bill Clinton without the marital infidelity problems

There's an infinitely more significant difference which I'm surprised hasn't been pointed out yet. Except for his honeymoon first year, Bill Clinton had to deal with an arrogant GOP-controlled Congress just itching for a reason, ANY reason, to wage political warfare with him.

How many of the onerous Clinton choices/actions came during that first year when he had a Dem-controlled Congress?

Quoth Bill Bodden: I understand that radical leftist organization, MoveOn.org, has become concerned that Obama won't live up to his promises and is organizing its members to put pressure on him when he takes over in January.

I wish this were true, Bill, but in fact MoveOn.org is organizing members to support Obama uncritically, as far as I can tell from what they've been mailing me.

So Clinton presided over a program that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including innocent children, but he is remains a model for Obama. What kind of "progressive" bullshit is this?

Bill --

I've heard this statement quite a few times, including several times from you, and I've got an honest question:

When you assign blame for the deaths caused by the economic sanctions, how much do you assign to the U.S. and its leadership - and how much do you assign to Sadaam Hussein?

Actually, I won't go as far as Garrett here.

My question was an honest one. I'm assuming that Bodden puts some of the blame on Sadaam, some on Clinton, some on other actors. I'm honestly curious who gets how much of the blame.

Bill is hardly the only person who put blame on the sanctions policy.

3. Warnings of Civilian Harm Civilian suffering in Iraq is not an unexpected collateral effect, but a predictable result of the sanctions policy. Security Council members have received warnings of the humanitarian emergency in Iraq and the damage done by sanctions since shortly after the Gulf War. Warnings have come from three Secretary Generals, many UN officials and agencies including UNICEF, WHO and WFP, and two Humanitarian Coordinators who have resigned in protest. A Select Committee of the UK House of Commons offered a very negative judgment as well.

Not only were people warning about the effects of sanctions throughout the Clinton era, but the very war-mongering that led to the current war in Iraq that was supported by the same people that were the strongest advocates of sanctions is a tacit admission that they didn't think the sanctions were working to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring WMDs.

Of course, those people were wrong about the WMDs, too.

The idea that we should have invaded "earlier," killed a million people, made four million refugees, and further destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq in order to stop deaths created by the sanction regime is just morally bankrupt.

Lest you think the report I cited was one-sided, this is the next point in the Executive Summary:

4. Causes of Suffering Sanctions are not the sole cause of human suffering in Iraq. The government of Iraq bears a heavy burden of responsibility due to the wars it has started, its lack of cooperation with the Security Council, its domestic repression, and its failure to use limited resources fairly. However, the UN Security Council shares responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. The United States and the United Kingdom, who use their veto power to prolong the sanctions, bear special responsibility for the UN action. No-fly zones, periodic military attacks, and threats of regime-change block peaceful outcomes, as do vilification of Saddam Hussein, pro-sanctions propaganda, and other politicization of the crisis. Though real concerns about Iraq's security threat undoubtedly are legitimate, commercial interests, especially control over Iraq's oil resources, appear to be a driving force behind much of the policy making.

Garrett makes a valid point. The Iraq issue was a classic case of being between a rock and a hard place. His mention of someone being at fault for being born in North Korea underscores it.

With or without sanctions, North Korean citizens routinely die as a direct result of their own harshly repressive government's choices. International sanctions may contribute but the ultimate onus is on the NK government for how it handles it's own resources. Ditto for Iraq under Saddam.

Don't get me wrong here. I wasn't a big fan of Iraqi sanctions. But what was the obvious alternative? To just turn a blind eye to it? Iraqis would have died either way. Invade earlier than we did? Iraqis would have died either way.

To just turn a blind eye to it?

What is the "it" you and Garrett speak of? The Iraq sanctions weren't imposed because of anything Saddam Hussein was doing to his own people. They were a result of the Kuwait invasion.

Is it your contention that the proper way to deal with Saddam's unprovoked invasion of a foreign country was to impose sanctions that were predicted to impose hardships on his citizens and kill hundreds of thousands of them? Since the US has been involved in any number of unprovoked invasions over the years (see Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, ad infinitum), are you willing to agree that we ought to be sanctioned on that basis, as well?

Or are you trying to push the false story that the sanctions were intended to help the Iraqi people (presumably by killing off hundreds of thousands of them and sending them to "heaven") and make them so miserable that they would do the US's bidding and rise up against Saddam? Considering that the largest segment of the population in Iraq was of the oppressed Shi'ite sect, that was sure a great plan. First they've got Saddam gunning for them and then they get hit the hardest by US/UK-imposed sanctions. Brilliant!

Even by 1991 it was pretty obvious that thirty years of sanctions against the Castro regime hadn't led to a government overthrow in Cuba. Nor had a decade of sanctions against Iran (apart from that whole Reagan arms sales thing) done anything to end the Khomeini revolution. Castro's still in charge after fifty years and ten presidents. And the mullahs are still running Iran.

There's a term for people who believe that doing the same thing over and over will yield a different result.

Iraqis would have died either way. Invade earlier than we did? Iraqis would have died either way.

Yeah, but how many Iraqis? I did an estimate a few years back based on reports of Saddam's crimes from the '70s on up, and tossed in pretty much everything he could possibly be saddled with, including all of the Iranian dead from the Iran/Iraq War that he started, then rounded it way up and came out with 3 million corpses. That included things like the reports of waves of children supposedly used by the Iranians to ruch Iraqi positions which, I have to say, I think the Iranians should get more blame for. But I was feeling generous.

That was over a period of about 25 years. Or 120,000/year.

The current Iraq war is estimated to have killed anywhere in the high hundreds of thousands to over a million people in seven and a half years. Round it up to a million and that's more than 130,000/year, a good 10% increase over Saddam's death toll. Maybe population expansion would account for that, but additionally, we've created a refugee population of four million and destroyed major public works and other infrastructures, not to mention practically levelling cities like Fallujah, something I don't think Saddam Hussein would have done unless a full-blown uprising had started up.

So while I'm sure you are comfortable thinking that "Iraqis would have died either way," the truth of the matter is, we've managed to cause the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein would likely have over the past several years, in addition to causing enormouse physical damage to the country, and create instability in neighboring countries.

Good plan.

Note to self: Darrel is unable/unwilling to offer a constructive alternative, obvious or otherwise. There's a name for folk like that - backseat drivers. Always ready to criticise both the message and the messenger but strangely silent otherwise.

A "constructive alternative" to what, Kevin? So far, you and Garrett have failed to even define what rationale under which you believe the sanctions were justified. All you've referred to is turning a blind eye to "it." Are you talking about Stephen King's "IT" or some other "it" or just some vague feeling of jitteriness that Saddam Hussein lived and breathed on the same planet?

I think I presented a pretty obvious "alternative." Instead of creating a situation which appears to have killed even more people than Saddam Hussein would have managed to knock off on his own, and further destabilize the region by creating a refugee crisis, the US could have done exactly what it ended up doing with countries like Germany, Japan, and Vietnam after wars with those countries ended. Stop acting like victimized assholes, encourage trade, try to actually help the people of the country instead of slaughtering them by the hundreds of thousands. See if that makes any changes in the country. Stop punishing the people of the country for the actions of the leader of the country.

Maybe that's not a bloody enough alternative for you.

There were many, many things the U.S. could have done differently.

The first thing to note is that the sanctions policy was originally put forward as a "regime change" policy, in terms of the goals of the U.S. and the U.K. The UN Security Council resolutions implementing it did not state that goal. But the persistence of U.S. and U.K. vetoes of various forms of modification of the sanctions, and long delays in acquiescing to the demands of the rest of the world due to the civilian death (and debilitating morbidity of many as well) reflected a persistent hope that they would lead to a successful uprising or coup.

Yet when such uprisings did occur, the U.S. failed to back them despite having called for them. I'm not saying backing them would have been so wonderful or a good or right policy, but to encourage them and then fail to back them, while continuing massive anti-civilian sanctions and regular bombardments? Simply despicable, even on the terms of the dominant American exceptionalist policy assumptions.

The same point about the phoniness of the supposed WMD aims is illustrated by the fact that the terms of the ceasefire and the sanctions regime permitted Hussein to continue to control military aircraft, especially helicopters, which were used to put down regional rebellions, and to exclude "presidential sites" from weapons inspections. Eventually the so-called "no fly zones" were established to geographically limit the use of the helicopters. But what was the response to violations of those zones? Was it to bombard the aircraft in question and their airfields and maintenance sites? No, it was to bombard so-called dual use civilian infrastructure, particularly relating to electricity, which interfered with the water systems of larger urban areas, including Baghdad, as well as the functioning of hospitals and clinics. A very large proportion of civilian deaths under sanctions were due to diseases of lack of sanitation tied to destroyed water systems, combined with the reduction of immune system functioning associated with undernutrition, especially among children and the aged.

Further, for it was not until well into Clinton's second term that the U.S. and the UK finally acceded to modified forms of sanctions intended to reduce civilian suffering (a delay again pointing to "regime change" as the real goal of those governments), and creating the "Oil for Food" program.

So even within the general framework of some kind of sanctions regime, the U.S. could have a) recognized the failure of its regime change policy goals for sanctions much earlier and agreed to change them to reduce civilian harm many years earlier, and b) not continued to use "no fly zone" violation retaliation to maintain high levels of degradation of basic civilian infrastructure damaging to public health and nutrition, rather than military targets (or even the vaunted "presidential sites").

Or, as Darrel's cited source implies, it could have begun with an entirely different kind of sanctions regime not targeted at civilians with predictable and predicted mass murderous consequences, but focused much more specifically on Hussein and his close supporters. It could have insisted, instead of a policy of preventing foods and medicines reaching Iraq (one activist from Portland was prosecuted for illegally bringing aspirin to Iraq), on the Iraqi government allowing and paying for reconstruction of civilian infrastructure outside of the control of Hussein's government, as in a narrower way was done with food distribution and some other limited humanitarian relief under the much-too-late "Oil for Food" program.

And, frankly, given the abject failure of the sanctions, yes, they could just have been abandoned. What harm would have come?

What else could Clinton have done when he learned of the Iraqis dying because of the sanctions? Well, for openers, he could have looked at the sanctions to see if a reasonable case could have been made for modifying them.

That's a hell of a lot closer to answering my question than Darrel managed. But it deals with the cart rather than the horse. What led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place? That's what I'm asking for constructive alternatives to. Not that it'll make any difference now, all these many years later. But at least it demonstrates a willingness to discuss the issue honestly and wholistically.

My impression is that Darrel and Harry, in particular, aren't the slightest bit interested in solutions. They've got an axe and by gawd they're gonna grind it at every opportunity. That's an utter waste of everyones time and talents, IMHO.

Here's the thing that really irks me. If the question of Iraqi sanctions were posed to the Blue Oregon readership as an isolated issue I am positive that the very large majority would express views critical of them, myself included (as I've expressed numerous times here in the past).

Calling me a fascist because I don't kneel down and worship Harry's Naderite Axe is absolutely on par in every way with the scorched-earth tactics we've witnessed the uber-insane-jackbooted-reichwing engage in with other conservatives. There's nothing remotely constructive about it. Darrel's tactics here have been only slightly less over-the-top than Harry's, but they've been along the exact same vein.

I guaran-friggin'-tee you that there are lots of non-conservatives who witness such tactics and see nothing but the mirror image of whack-job TheoCons.

Lemme finish that thought there at the end...

"I guaran-friggin'-tee you that there are lots of non-conservatives who witness such tactics and see nothing but the mirror image of whack-job TheoCons who they find equally offensive."

Believe me or not as y'all see fit. But I have talked to self-described "centrists" who bluntly stated that as much as they loath the far right whackjobs, they fear the far left's whackjobs more.

My impression is that Darrel and Harry, in particular, aren't the slightest bit interested in solutions. They've got an axe and by gawd they're gonna grind it at every opportunity.

As I remember, this started off with some sort of bizarre accusation of sock-puppeting by you, Kevin. So I'm not sure your impressions are really worth much at all.

After all of this, now only now are you asking "What led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place?" That was the question I was asking you and Garrett, and it's essential to understanding just what a mess the sanctions were in the first place.

As for "self-described 'centrists' who bluntly stated ... they fear the far left's whackjobs more," my own bet would be that those people aren't actually centrists at all.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the center itself isn't immune from whackjobs. People who are so tied into a self-image as "realists" that they position themselves on the opposite side of an issue from those they view as "whackjobs" -- even if the "whackjobs" are right -- are the kinds of people who got us into the Iraq war.

Kevin, Darrel has never to my knowledge on BlueOregon called anyone a fascist.

One interesting and for me in retrospect disturbing fact about the Iraq sanctions is that in the run-up to the war the anti-war movement was calling for sanctions as an alternative to war. What Bush put into place was different in kind and intent to those the movement would have wanted I think, but it is also a fact that criticism of the sanctions was muted by comparison to opposition to the war from the left in the U.S. for several years (including me), with some notable and courageous exceptions such as Kathy Kelley and Voices in the Wilderness. When I began to awake from my stupor about it, I came to think the failure to do more was shaped by a combination of defeatedness (we had not stopped the war, we were a tiny minority of perhaps 15% during it despite majority opposition beforehand, our predictions about the course of the war proved dramatically wrong) and the fact that we ourselves had been calling for sanctions beforehand.

The actual sanctions were first put in place by the George H. W. Bush administration -- or rather, by the UN Security Council under U.S. leadership, not Bill Clinton's administration. It will be remembered that this was at the peak of immediate post-Soviet U.S. triumphalism, "U.S. the only superpower" global hegemonism (and as we now know, hubris), neo-liberal dictation from the U.S. dominated IMF and World Bank and so on.

Bush (at the urging of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell among others) had decided not to pursue the war to the point of overthrowing Hussein and capturing him and putting him on trial for war crimes for the aggression he had committed. The reports were that the administration feared that if Hussein were removed from power, Iraq would fall into civil war from which Iran would benefit. From this flowed a fundamental incoherence of U.S. policy that persisted throughout the Clinton administration due to their viciously stupid decisions to stay the course with the Bush policy.

The incoherence was that Bush and Clinton wanted "regime change," but preferred Hussein in power to the civil war they feared. Hence the literally atrocious idiocy of encouraging rebellion and promising support, but failing to follow through at least twice under Bush. The fantasy was that Hussein could be removed in a coup that would replace him with another dictator who could hold Iraq together. Whether that really would have constituted regime change in anything but personnel detail is a nice question.

This incoherent desire simultaneously to remove Hussein from power and to keep him in power has a great deal to do with the previously mentioned peculiarities of the sanctions and bombing regimen in leaving resources in Hussein's hands that one might expect to have been removed.

It also comes to Kari's question of how much responsibility lies with Hussein and how much with the U.S. Kari appears to pose this as a quantitative question, sort of like decisions about percentage of fault in auto collisions under some insurance and state legal system. I think that's the wrong way to look at it.

Instead, on the one hand, Hussein bears responsibility for his actions (and his minions for theirs), while the U.S. bears responsibility for ours. Insofar as the sanctions had known horrifically murderous consequences and known lack of success, beyond any question after a certain point fairly early in Clinton's first term, the U.S. bears complete responsibility for continuing to pursue a failed policy despite the known consequences.

Hussein's responsibility is harder to assess, because it depends on what you think about whether the U.S. would in fact have lifted the sanctions if he had cooperated fully with the weapons inspections, obeyed the no-fly zones & so on. This is not at all clear, since regime change was a central U.S. policy goal, and since his claims that he had destroyed the WsMD proved to be true, but were rejected. George W. Bush wouldn't take yes for an answer from him; it is not clear if Bill Clinton would have or not.

But even assuming Clinton would have, what you had was a bizarre collaboration between the U.S. and Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people. The U.S. administration pursued the fantasy that sanctions would lead to Hussein's fall, and meanwhile relied upon him to hold the country together an limit Iranian influence, while Hussein used the sanctions to rally a kind of nationalist support based on the misdirected coercion, while insulating his key supporters from their effects with the effective permission of the U.S., given what sanctions were and were not pursued.

Still, at the end of the day, the U.S. held the whip hand. It had the power to lift or alter the sanctions themselves, regardless of what Hussein did. Hussein at most had the power to change the circumstances in which the U.S. government considered its choices, but could not end them, regardless of what he did.

It's a bit like Rodney King lying on the ground and moving a little, and the cops beating him deciding that justified beating him some more. If the cops had not decided to beat him more for moving a little, he could not have threatened them or got away, just writhed in pain on the ground, which was what his movements were. Iraq was prostrate and posed no threat to anyone if sanctions had been lifted.

Darrel has never to my knowledge on BlueOregon called anyone a fascist.

Chris, you're trying to use logic and fact in this argument, which will only get you dismissed as a "far-left whackjob" or a "European-style socialist" depending on which of the self-appointed lights of Oregon Democratic orthodoxy you happen to be disagreeing with. It's funny that the language employed so perfectly apes the kind of insults employed by denizens of FreeRepublic to describe, well, pretty much any Democrat.

To be perfectly honest, I think it's possible that I might have stated that the Bush administration had fascist tendencies, either here or elsewhere, but then I'm at least in sync with Harpers editor Lewis Lapham's interpretation of Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism" essay.

darrelplant: Chris, you're trying to use logic and fact in this argument, which will only get you dismissed as a "far-left whackjob" or a "European-style socialist" depending on which of the self-appointed lights of Oregon Democratic orthodoxy you happen to be disagreeing with.

Ahhhhh..... After this election, I'm not sure what's sweeter: the taste of GOP neocon tears, or the sweet sweet tears of GOP-neocon enabling Naderite purity trolls, crying that they weren't able to again damage the progressive movement for the sin of being insufficiently angry.

When Kevin said he was tired of being called a fascist for objecting to Harry's Naderite Axe, he was talking about the backbeat's comment upthread: "Bill B. and darrelplant have done a good job of opposing the fascists' arguments." Harry Kershner also likes to throw around such acid rhetoric, for example: Perhaps Obama is less of a fascist than McCain, but he is a fascist.

So Chris was merely pointing out that for all his other agreements with these two noxious kooks, darrelplant has at least stayed away from using "fascist" as an epithet. Chris is a nice guy who tries to be fair.

Also for the record, I have talked about European-style Socialism specifically to point out that there are actual governing Socialist parties in the world, so it is a legitimate political viewpoint, as opposed to an epithet as in the manner that Republicans like to use. But according to google, the word "whackjob" has never been used in conjunction with darrelplant - or at least up until he started wildly stating that people were accusing him of being one (the psychological basis of such protestations I'll leave up to the reader.)

But according to google, the word "whackjob" has never been used in conjunction with darrelplant

Google? Why would you need Google when Kevin used it (albeit in both hyphenated and non-hyphenated form) in two comments in this thread alone, the first of which mentions me (and Harry) and the second of which (finishing his thought) concludes:

But I have talked to self-described "centrists" who bluntly stated that as much as they loath the far right whackjobs, they fear the far left's whackjobs more.

Kevin seemed to spend some time (as do you) equating me and Harry, so my (I think) fairly logical assumption was that he meant to cover the two of us with that term. As to the kinds of people who would be less fearful of right-wing theocrats than left-wing democratic socialists, well, I let other people draw their own conclusions. Thankfully, we now (at least according to FOX News) we now have a socialist president, so I guess we won. Nyah.

I wonder why you pretend that you've only used "socialist" in a political/historical sense and not "an epithet as in the manner that Republicans like to use." It's like someone who slavered for the blood of Saddam trying to paper over their enthusiasm for the war by saying it just would have been a good idea if we could have persuaded him to leave.

Or perhaps you've forgotten this:

But what do we do with all these Green/Socialist trolls? Donate to the DLC?

I know, I know, you really mean that the only epithet in there was "troll." The "Socialist" thing was just descriptive, sort of like saying Barack Hussein Obama.

I'm not sure what's sweeter: the taste of GOP neocon tears, or the sweet sweet tears of GOP-neocon enabling Naderite purity trolls, crying that they weren't able to again damage the progressive movement for the sin of being insufficiently angry.

This made me laugh, too, because the idea that people like Steve care a whit about the "progressive movement" or that I was expecting the Democratic party nominee to be anything but a centrist is a hoot. My own view on Obama has been pretty consistent from day one.

Not like someone who wrote back in July that he was initially concerned about Obama because it seemed the "wrong" people liked him too much.

Honestly, it worried me for many months how happy the kooks were with Barack Obama. It really makes me nervous when the Che Guevara crowd latches onto any Democrat - it's more a sure kiss of death for a candidate than being locked up in one of Che's prisons.

Like that guy could identify a "kook" if it was looking him in the mirror.

I make my decisions based on a candidate's records and statements, not who's willing to vote for them. I prefer not to live life having to clean up puddles of my own fear and anxiety.

Clearly, Mr. Plant, judging electability in progressive candidates isn't your thing. But it does rather significantly factor into mine. Real leaders are like fishermen: they're pull the body politic in a direction, but know if they yank too hard, they'll break the line, the bond of trust, forever damaging their influence.

So as I said then, I'm relieved to know the hate filled "Democrats are fascists" kook brigade hates Obama. And because of that, as hard as they tried with Ayres, the GOP never got any traction on any of those guilt by association smears.

Besides -- sweet sweet nutcase tears.

p.s. So what exactly is the matter with Obama's middle name? I guarantee you that 2/3rds of the world is happy he has it.

Clearly, Mr. Plant, judging electability in progressive candidates isn't your thing.

Not really sure where you're getting that. I just said that I don't base my support for people on whether I'm trembling like a Chihuahua in fright about who else might support them. I thought Obama was a serious contender for the White House back when you were apparently looking under his bed for Che aficianodos.

So as I said then, I'm relieved to know the hate filled "Democrats are fascists" kook brigade hates Obama. And because of that, as hard as they tried with Ayres, the GOP never got any traction on any of those guilt by association smears.

It's funny, because on one hand you're saying the right was using "guilt by association" regarding Ayers and on the other hand you were worried about the association of "kooks" with Obama. It's hard to tell where you leave off and Sean Hannity begins.

p.s. So what exactly is the matter with Obama's middle name? I guarantee you that 2/3rds of the world is happy he has it.