Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator 法官订定日期，见证了包括前总统，参议员

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.而希拉里战役巴拉克奥巴马对竞选时，一名法官在洛杉矶正在悄悄地准备设立一个审判日期在17000000美元欺诈诉状中指出，旨在揭露涉嫌文化的普遍的腐败现象，由克林顿和民主党。

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.在总结听证会在明天上午之前，加利福尼亚州高级法院法官奥雷里奥穆尼奥斯12月31日，律师为好莱坞名人楼彼得保罗将开始寻求宣誓证词，所有三个克林顿-条例草案时，希拉里和切尔西-随着热门民主党领袖发表-名人名单，其中包括芭芭拉Streisand ） ，约翰屈伏塔，布拉德·皮特和cher 。

Paul’s team hopes for a trial in October.保罗的团队，希望有一个试验计划在10月。 The Clintons’ longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.克林顿夫妇'老律师戴维肯德尔，他将出席听证会，拒绝对此诉讼发表评论。

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.克林顿夫妇曾试图罢免案，但加州最高法院，在2004年，维持下级法院的决定，拒绝该动议。

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign.比尔克林顿，根据该诉状，承诺要推动保罗的互联网娱乐公司，斯坦李媒体，以换取股票，现金选择和大量捐款给他的妻子在2000年的参议院议员竞选活动。 Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.保罗争辩说，他是导演，克林顿和民主党领袖，以生产，支付，然后再同他们一起说谎的基础上，条例草案为好莱坞大笪地和筹款。

The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul.克林顿夫妇'法律顾问否认了美国前总统做出任何处理保罗。 But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.但保罗（ Colette检察长威尔逊告诉wnd有证人说，这是共同的知识斯坦李传媒说，克林顿正在准备一个Rainmaker旅馆，为公司后，他离开办公室。

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.保罗宣称，前副总统戈尔，民主党前党主席海关rendell和克林顿总统竞选委员会主席特里mcauliffe又是其中的人，可以证实保罗从事这项交易。

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000.保罗宣称rendell针对各种非法捐款给的DNC和希拉里克林顿的竞选失败的报告，向联邦选举委员会以上十万元给好莱坞的盛事，戈尔的竞选民主党全国委员会在2000年。 McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. mcauliffe ，保罗说，辅导他，在两个不同的会议，以成为一个主要捐助国向希拉里铺平道路，聘请她的丈夫。 Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in “perjured testimony” during the trial of保罗断言热门克林顿的顾问哈罗德伊克斯也指示他把钱交给了参议院议员竞选活动，但隐瞒了这一事实，在" perjured证词" ，在审讯过程中的 campaign finance 竞选资金 director David Rosen.导演大卫罗森。

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000.罗森则获判无罪，在2005年提交虚假的战役报道说，稍后被落案起诉，由该中心向掌柜安德鲁格罗斯曼，谁承担责任，在调解协议的罚款运动35000 。 Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton’s campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.保罗指出了罗森试行建立了他的争论，他个人捐的多了，比120万美元给克林顿的竞选，并认为他的贡献，故意隐藏，由公众和联邦竞选委员会。

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul’s in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat.罗森，被指控隐瞒保罗的，在实物捐助的100万美元以上，则获判无罪，但保罗争辩说，克林顿人员是一个替罪羊。 Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.保罗指出，行政克林顿的发言人霍华德沃尔夫森告诉华盛顿邮报，他知道这笔捐款，但他从来没有被传召为证人，在罗森审判。

Paul contends his case will expose “the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party,” which seeks to attain “unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government.”保罗争辩说他的案件，将揭露"体制性的腐败文化的拥抱，克林顿领导的民主党" ，旨在达到"不负责任的权力，为克林顿夫妇不惜牺牲法治和尊重宪法的进程是政府的责任。 "

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul’s donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions.该申诉书，克林顿提出了四个假报告，以该中心的保罗的捐款中，企图以自己的距离，从他之后，华盛顿邮报的故事天之后， 2000年8月筹款会报，他过去的重罪定罪。 Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul.  But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.克林顿随后返回检查，为2000加元，而坚持这是唯一的钱，她从保罗，但一个月后，她要求另外十万元，被隐藏在一个国家委员会，以追查的证券。

“Why wouldn’t that cause someone to inquire?” Paul asked. "为什么不会造成有人过问吗？ "保罗问道。 “Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn’t take any more money from me.” " ，尤其是因为这是几天后，她说她将不会采取任何更多的钱由我" 。

Paul has the保罗有 support of a new grass-roots political action group支持的一个新的基层政治行动小组 that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation’s top lawyers这是帮助拉住援助的一中是全国最大的律师

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul’s case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former共和党活动家棒李柱铭说，他的小组计划突出保罗的情况，因为它发射的一个组织的基础上，业务模式的左翼moveon.org但植根于原则和政治哲学的前 President Reagan 里根总统 . 。

Martin’s group also is assisting in Paul’s complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will “have aided and abetted in the commission” of a felony.马丁的小组也正在协助保罗的投诉，该中心声称，除非该机构设立专区调解协议，并撤销豁免权授予参议员，将"帮助和怂恿下，在委员会"的一项重罪。

Paul’s case is the subject of a保罗的案例是一个议题 video documentary largely comprised of intimate “home movies” of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period电视记录片，主要是组成体内"家庭电影"的希拉里和她的好莱坞支持者抓获郑明训期间 . 。

© 2008 WorldNetDaily © 2008年worldnetdaily

MATT TAIBBI | 马特塔伊比| Rolling Stone 滚石

Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends 当选为结束战争，民主党人有自首布什对伊拉克的背叛和平运动，为自己的政治目的

Quietly Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. 静静悄悄地，而希拉里克林顿和巴拉克奥巴马都令人振奋，到处同盟与他们的滚动bitchfest ，国会superduo里德和佩洛西已经完成了其中一个最令人敬畏的政治倒塌以来，内维尔张伯伦。 At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.在长期上，民主党领导的国会已经公开宣布投降，伊拉克战争刚刚一年后，被扫进电源，用坚定的任务是结束这种现象。

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in US political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party’s energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn’t fit Iraq into his busy schedule.巩固自己的声誉，作为一个最大的pussies在美国政治史上，里德解释说，他决定重新把他的党的主要精力放在课题以外的结束战争，说他当时还是无法适应伊拉克变成了他在百忙中。 “We have the presidential election,” Reid said recently. "我们有总统大选， "瑞德说，最近。 “Our time is really squeezed.” "我们的时间实在是挤" 。

There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again.有不少市民脱落的眼泪当中，民主党领导作用，因为里德，佩洛西和其他国会重量级人物表示深切悲痛，他们的英勇收取了山的变化已经挫败了他们无法控制的情况-即，尽管他们会喜欢继续努力，以结束伊拉克的灾难性处理，他们现在必须等到，哦， 2009年，以再次尝试。 “We’ll have a new president,” said Pelosi. "我们将有一个新总统上任后，说： "佩洛西。 “And I do think at that time we’ll take a fresh look at it.” "而且我不认为在那个时候我们会重新考虑它" 。

Pelosi seemed especially broken up about having to surrender on Iraq, sounding like an NFL coach in a postgame presser, trying with a straight face to explain why he punted on first-and-goal.佩洛西似乎是打破了约不得不交出对伊拉克，听起来就像上周教练在postgame压，试图以板着一张脸，以解释他为什么punted对第一代和目标。 “We just didn’t have any plays we liked down there,” said the coach of the 0-15 Dems. "我们只是一直没有扮演我们喜欢的存在，他们说： "教练的0-15机电工程署署长。 “Sometimes you just have to play the field-position game….” "有时候你一定要发挥实地位置的游戏… … " 。

In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in some serious point-shaving.在现实中，虽然，佩洛西和民主党其实是从事着一些严重点剃。 Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation’s leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war.工作在幕后，民主党人有系统地接管了反战运动，打包全国的工作领导小组，党顾问公司更热衷于攻击共和党比从而结束了第二次世界大战。 “Our focus is on the Republicans,” one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "我们的重点是对共和党的， "一个民主apparatchik负责反战联盟宣布。 “How can we juice up attacks on them?” "我们怎样才能汁了攻击他" ？

The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what’s to come if they win the White House.这个故事是如何民主党人终于背叛了选民的人交给美国国会参众两院在一年前是一个令人沮丧的预览什么的来，如果他们赢得白宫。 And if we don’t pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there’s still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years.如果我们不加以注意，这对不起，现在的故事，而有的还有时间可以改变主意谁提名，我们可能会忍受这同一群spineless讨厌的家伙，为4年。 With no one but ourselves to blame.没人，但我们自己的责任。

The The controversy over the Democratic “strategy” to end the war basically comes down to whom you believe. 有关的争议，民主党的"策略" ，以结束战争，基本上可以归结为其中你相信。 According to the Reid-Pelosi version of history, the Democrats tried hard to force President Bush’s hand by repeatedly attempting to tie funding for the war to a scheduled withdrawal.据该里德-佩洛西版的历史中，民主派人士极力迫使布什总统的手，一再企图以配合资金，用于战争，一定撤回。 Last spring they tried to get him to eat a timeline and failed to get the votes to override a presidential veto.去年春天，他们试图让他吃一张时间表，并没有得到他们的选票来推翻总统的否决。 Then they retreated and gave Bush his money, with the aim of trying again after the summer to convince a sufficient number of Republicans to cross the aisle in support of a timeline.然后他们退守，并送给布什他的钱，其目的是试图再次夏天过后，以说服足够数量的共和党人穿过走道支持的时间表。

But in September, Gen. David Petraeus reported that Bush’s “surge” in Iraq was working, giving Republicans who might otherwise have flipped sufficient cover to continue supporting the war.但在9月，将军大卫彼得雷乌斯报道说，布什的"冲劲" ，在伊拉克工作，使共和党有可能已经翻了足够的掩护，继续支持战争。 The Democrats had no choice, the legend goes, but to wait until 2009, in the hopes that things would be different under a Democratic president.民主党人已别无选择，传说有云，但要等到2009年，在希望事情会有所不同，根据民主党总统。

Democrats insist that the reason they can’t cut off the money for the war, despite their majority in both houses, is purely political.民主派人士坚持认为，他们之所以不能切断资金用于战争，尽管它们多数在这两个房子，纯粹是政治性的。 “George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the troops,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "乔治布什将在电视上每五分钟一班，称该同盟背叛了部队，说： "参议员伯尼桑德斯佛蒙特州。 Then he glumly adds another reason.然后他glumly增加的另一个原因。 “Also, it just wasn’t going to happen.” "同时，并没有问题，只是要发生什么" 。

Why it “just wasn’t going to happen” is the controversy. 为什么 "没有问题，只是要发生什么" ，是争议。 In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter.在靠近大厅的国会，概念，即民主派作出了真诚的努力，以结束战争会见，在最好的，嘲弄的笑声。 Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party’s lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.虽然少数国会幕僚会认为这样说是对的纪录，在许多私人解雇党的跛脚反战努力，作为一个荒谬的狗和小马显示，计算，企图以政治分数从来没有被认真地把部队回家。

“Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable,” says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. "是啊，这个数额expletives飞往在我们的办公室仅是难以置信，说： "一个幕僚之一，坚决反对战争的众议院议员。 “It was all about the public show. "这是所有对公众查看。 Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese.里德和佩洛西会说，他们采取这一强硬立场，对布什，但如果你其实看什么，他们派进行了表决，它像瑞士奶酪。 Full of holes.”充满漏洞" 。

In the House, some seventy Democrats joined the Out of Iraq caucus and repeatedly butted heads with Reid and Pelosi, arguing passionately for tougher measures to end the war.在众议院中，一些七十民主党人加入进出伊拉克的核心小组，并多次对接元首与里德和佩洛西，慷慨激昂地争论，为更严厉的措施，以结束这场战争。 The fight left some caucus members bitter about the party’s failure.扑灭留下一些党团成员忧伤党的失败。 Rep. Barbara Lee of California was one of the first to submit an amendment to cut off funding unless it was tied to an immediate withdrawal.众议员芭芭拉李的加利福尼亚州是第一个提出一项修正案，以切断资金，除非它是绑立即撤出。 “I couldn’t even get it through the Rules Committee in the spring,” Lee says. "我不能，甚至通过规则委员会今年春天， "李说。

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a fellow caucus member, says Democrats should have refused from the beginning to approve any funding that wasn’t tied to a withdrawal.众议员林恩伍尔西，研究员党团成员表示，民主党人应该拒绝从一开始就批准任何资金，这不是绑撤离。 “If we’d been bold the minute we got control of the House — and that’s why we got the majority, because the people of this country wanted us out of Iraq — if we’d been bold, even if we lost the votes, we would have gained our voice.” "如果我们自己被大胆分钟，我们得到控制众议院-这也是为什么我们会得到大多数人，因为这个国家的人民希望我们走出伊拉克-如果我们自己被大胆的，即使我们失去了票，我们会得到我们的声音" 。

An honest attempt to end the war, say Democrats like Woolsey and Lee, would have involved forcing Bush to execute his veto and allowing the Republicans to filibuster all they wanted.一个诚实的尝试，以结束战争，民主党人说，像伍尔西和利，将有涉及迫使布什向他的否决权，并允许共和党人拉布所有他们想要的。 Force a showdown, in other words, and use any means necessary to get the bloodshed ended.武力摊牌，换句话说，用任何必要的手段来获得流血结束。

“Can you imagine Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert taking no for an answer the way Reid and Pelosi did on Iraq?” asks the House aide in the expletive-filled office. "你能想象汤姆迪莱和Denny哈斯特尔特不采取这个答案的方式里德和佩洛西当时对伊拉克" ，要求众议院助手在expletive填充办公室。 “They’d find a way to get the votes. "他们帆船方式获得选票。 They’d get it done somehow.”他们锁存这样做有点" 。

But any suggestion that the Democrats had an obligation to fight this good fight infuriates the bund of hedging careerists in charge of the party.但任何暗示民主派有责任打好这一良好扑灭愤怒外滩套期保值careerists负责的党。 In fact, nothing sums up the current Democratic leadership better than its vitriolic criticisms of those recalcitrant party members who insist on interpreting their 2006 mandate as a command to actually end the war.事实上，没有什么总结了目前民主党的领导优于硫酸批评那些顽抗的党员，他们坚持对诠释其2006年的任务，作为一个指挥，真正结束这场战争。 Rep. David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee and a key Pelosi-Reid ally, lambasted anti-war Democrats who “didn’t want to get specks on those white robes of theirs.” Obey even berated a soldier’s mother who begged him to cut off funds for the war, accusing her and her friends of “smoking something illegal.”众议员大卫服从，主持会议的众议院拨款委员会和一个关键佩洛西-里德的盟友，强烈抨击反战同盟的人"不想让斑点那些白色长袍，他们的"绝对服从，甚至们对军人的母亲恳求其切断资金用于战争，指责她和她的朋友们的"吸烟一些非法的" 。

Rather Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that “anti-war activism” became synonymous with “electing Democrats.” Capitalizing on America’s desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. 而不是利用广大的权力，他们为了结束战争，民主党人奉献能源，以确保"反战争行动主义"的代名词，成为与"选举民主派" ，利用美国的愿望，以结束战争，他们劫持了反战运动本身，灌装的行列和平团体与忠诚的党棍。 Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats — one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.反战组织基本上已成为一种政治工具，为民主党人-一个班次，由内绕城和主要讨论对象的共和党人。

This supposedly grass-roots “anti-war coalition” met regularly on K Street, the very capital of top-down Beltway politics.这理应基层的"反战联盟" ，定期举行会议，对K街时，很资本的自顶向下绕城政治。 At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, the leader of the anti-war lobby.在全国前列的群体是托马斯matzzie和布拉德伍德豪斯的美国人对不断升级的伊拉克，这位领导人的反战游说。 Along with other K Street crusaders, the two have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New York Times , both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-progressives in shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat — changing the world is fun!随着其他K街十字军，两国已收到标志性待遇，由华盛顿邮报和纽约时报等 ，都表现反战勇士作为年轻的理想主义者-进步人士在shirtsleeves ，骑欢快的精神，使之成为政治作战-改变世界是好玩！

But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for?但究竟这些年轻的理想主义者竞选？ At its most recent meeting, the group eerily echoed the Reid-Pelosi “squeezed for time” mantra: Retreat from any attempt to end the war and focus on electing Democrats.在其最近的会议上，专家组的炮火呼应里德-佩洛西"挤时间"的口头禅：从务虚的任何企图，以结束战争，并重点就选民主党。 “There was a lot of agreement that we can draw distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans,” a spokeswoman for Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq announced. "有很多的协议，我们可以区分反战同盟，并赞成战争的共和党人， "一位女发言人对于美国人对不断升级的伊拉克宣布。

What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war group’s leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes — whose partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).什么职位和时代没有要注意的是，大部分的反战团体的领导，盛赞由一家咨询公司所谓的门将希尔德布兰德tewes -其合作伙伴，史蒂夫门将希尔德布兰德和保罗t ewes，充当幕僚，为民主党参议院竞选委员会（纪律部队评议会） 。 In addition, these anti-war leaders continue to consult for many of the same US senators whom they need to pressure in order to end the war.此外，这些反战领导人继续进行磋商，为许多同样的，美国参议员的人，他们需要压力，以结束这场战争。 This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community.这是什么样的利益冲突，这通常是一个尴尬，在社会活动家。

Worst of all is the case of Woodhouse, who came to Hildebrand Tewes after years of working as the chief mouthpiece for the DSCC, where he campaigned actively to re-elect Democratic senators who supported the Iraq War in the first place.最糟糕的是案件伍德豪斯，前来门将希尔德布兰德tewes经过多年的工作，正如行政喉舌，为纪律部队评议会，在那里他竞选积极重新选举民主党参议员曾支持伊拉克战争在首位。 Anyone bothering to look — and clearly the Post and the Times did not before penning their ardent bios of Woodhouse — would have found the youthful idealist bragging to newspapers before the Iraq invasion about the pro-war credentials of North Carolina candidate Erskine Bowles.任何人打扰看-显然，邮政和时代没有潘宁之前，他们殷切的B IOS的伍德豪斯-将已经找到了年轻的理想主义者，夸张地报纸在入侵伊拉克前约亲战争证书的北卡罗莱纳州的候选人艾斯坚拖垮了。 “No one has been stronger in this race in supporting President Bush in the War on Terror and his efforts to effect a regime change in Iraq,” boasted the future “anti-war” activist Woodhouse. "没有人被强在这项赛事中，支持布什总统在反恐战争中与他的努力获得了政权更替，在伊拉克， "吹嘘未来的"反战"活动家胡。

With guys like this in charge of the anti-war movement, much of what has passed for peace activism in the past year was little more than a thinly veiled scheme to use popular discontent over the war to unseat vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008.同家伙像这样负责的反战运动，不少是通过和平的积极性，在过去的一年多一点遮掩的计划，以利用民众的不满战争，以推翻脆弱共和党为竞选连任2008 。 David Sirota, a former congressional staffer whose new book, The Uprising , excoriates the Democrats for their failure to end the war, expresses disgust at the strategy of targeting only Republicans.朱sirota ，一名前国会工作人员，其新著，起义 ， excoriates民主党人他们未能结束战争，表示反感，在战略目标的只有共和党。 “The whole idea is based on this insane fiction that there is no such thing as a pro-war Democrat,” he says. "整个想法是在此基础上，疯了小说，有没有这样的事，作为一个赞成战争的民主党人" ，他说。 “Their strategy allows Democrats to take credit for being against the war without doing anything to stop it. "他们的策略，让民主派人士以信用为反对战争，没有采取任何行动阻止它。 It’s crazy.”它的疯狂" 。

Justin Raimondo, the uncompromising editorial director of Antiwar.com, regrets contributing twenty dollars to Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq.贾斯汀raimondo ，不妥协的编辑总监antiwar.com ，遗憾的贡献二十一美元，以美国人对不断升级的伊拉克。 “Not only did they use it to target Republicans,” he says, “they went after the ones who were on the fence about Iraq.” The most notorious case involved Lincoln Chafee, a moderate from Rhode Island who lost his Senate seat in 2006. "他们不仅用它来针对共和党人" ，他说， "他们来到后，那些人对围栏约伊拉克" ，最恶名昭彰的案件涉及林肯查菲，一个温和，从罗得岛州的人失去了他在参议院的席位，在2006年。 Since then, Chafee has taken shots at Democrats like Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, all of whom campaigned against him despite having voted for the war themselves.自那时起，绝大部分人已经采取枪，民主党人里德一样，希拉里和Chuck舒默人，全部竞选对他虽赞成战争本身。

“Look, I understand partisan politics,” says Chafee, who now concedes that voters were correct to punish him for his war vote. "你看，我明白党派政治的， "博尔顿说，他们现在承认，选民正确惩罚他，他在一战中投票。 “I just find it amusing that those who helped get us into this mess now say we need to change the Senate — because we’re in a mess.” "我只是觉得好玩，那些帮助我们进入这个烂摊子，现在说，要改变参议院-因为我们处在一个烂摊子" 。

The The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it’s now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. 在真正悲惨的一件事，民主党投降伊拉克是它的，现在一切，但保证说，这场战争将关闭表，在总统竞选。 Once again — it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 — the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they’ve made to the contrary, in the end they’ve done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they’ve been asked to give, every step of the way.再次-发生在2 002年， 2 004年和2 006年-民主党已基本上决定依靠选民，让他们的功劳被反战争，尽管事实上，对所有的噪音，他们已经作出了相反的，在年底他们做什么，但投票支持战争和咳嗽起来，每一分钱，他们已经被要求给予每一步路。

Even beyond the war, the Democrats have repeatedly gone limp-dick every time the Bush administration so much as raises its voice.甚至超出了战争中，民主党人已多次深入瘫软-迪克每一次，布什政府为何如此之多引起了它的声音。 Most recently, twelve Democrats crossed the aisle to grant immunity to phone companies who participated in Bush’s notorious wiretapping program.最近， 12名民主党人穿过走道给予豁免，以电话公司的负责人曾参加了布什的臭名昭著的监听程序。 Before that, Democrats caved in and confirmed Mike Mukasey as attorney general after he kept his middle finger extended and refused to condemn waterboarding as torture.这之前，民主党人塌陷，并证实麦克mukasey作为总检察长后，他信守自己的中指延伸，并拒绝谴责waterboarding作为酷刑。 Democrats fattened by Wall Street also got cold feet about upsetting the country’s gazillionaires, refusing to close a tax loophole that rewarded hedge-fund managers with a tax rate less than half that paid by ordinary citizens.民主党人养肥由华尔街也已经消逝约扰乱国家的gazillionaires ，拒不执行关闭的税务漏洞，奖励对冲基金经理人与税率不到一半，所支付的普通公民。

But the war is where they showed their real mettle.但是这场战争是他们显示其真正的实力。 Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day.之前， 2006年的选举中，民主派人士告诉我们，我们可预期更具体的对他们的战争计划后，在选举日。 Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war.近两年时间过去了，自那时起，现在他们却再一次告诉我们，要等到选举结束后，看看真正的行动来制止战争。 In the meantime, of course, we’re to remember that they’re the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi !在此同时，当然，我们要记住，它们还是好人，共和党是真正的敌人，那么，到希拉里！ semper Fi的 ！ Yay, team! yay ，团队！

How much of this bullshit are we going to take?有多少本bullshit ，难道我们要怎么走？ How long are we supposed to give the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting , deep down in their moldy hearts, to do the right thing?多久，我们是否给予reids和pelosis和hillarys整个世界的信用为无用的 ，深究其发霉的心，做正确的事？

Look, fuck your hearts, OK?你看，他妈的你的心，行吗？ Just get it done.刚刚获得做到这一点。 Because if you don’t, sooner or later this con is going to run dry.因为如果不这样做，迟早这种情况将会枯竭。 It may not be in ‘08, but it’ll be soon.它可能不是在2008年，但它会很快。 Even Americans can’t be fooled forever.甚至美国人不能永远蒙蔽。

Declassified letter exposes Democratic Party complicity in CIA torture 解密信件，暴露了民主党共谋中情局酷刑

By由 Joe Kay乔凯

Last week, the CIA declassified a February 2003 letter from Democratic Representative Jane Harman of California discussing the planned destruction of videotapes depicting the interrogation and torture of prisoners held by the CIA.上周，美国中央情报局解密的2003年2月的信由民主党众议员哈曼的加州讨论计划销毁的录影带，展示审讯和拷打囚犯举行，由中央情报局。

Harman requested that the CIA release the letter in order to show her supposed criticism of the agency’s plans to destroy the evidence.哈曼要求中情局公布这封信，以示，她批评该机构的计划，以毁灭证据。 In a statement on the letter, Harman said that it “makes clear my concern about possible destruction of any tapes.” In fact, the letter only underscores the fact that the Democratic Party was aware of and supported the CIA’s secret policy of torture.在一份声明中对信中，哈曼说，它"字，说明了我的关注可能破坏任何录音带等， "其实，在信中只强调了一个事实，就是民主党意识到，并支持中情局的秘密政策的酷刑。

Democrats knew of plans to destroy evidence of interrogations, but made no serious attempt to stop it or inform the American people.民主党人知道的计划，毁灭证据的盘问，但并没有严重的，企图阻止它或告知美国人民。 Indeed, Harman’s “concern” was in effect an indication to the CIA that the Democrats would not challenge a decision to destroy the tapes and would not expose the agency if it did so.事实上，哈曼的"关切" ，实际上表明了以美国中央情报局认为，民主派人士不会挑战当局决定销毁录音带，并不会揭露机构，如果它这样做。

The videotapes, involving hundreds of hours of interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, were secretly destroyed in November 2005.录影带，其中涉及数百小时的审问阿布祖贝达和阿卜杜勒拉希姆基地Nashiri ） ，被秘密销毁了在2005年11月。 Their destruction was only publicly disclosed last month, though several Democrats had been made aware of the action at least a year ago.销毁只是公开披露的最后一个月，虽然若干民主派人士已认识到这一行动，至少在一年前。

Perhaps the most significant section of the three-paragraph letter is that dealing with the CIA’s interrogation policy, not the plans for destroying the tapes.或许最重要的一段三段信是处理与中情局的审问政策，而不是计划摧毁磁带。 Harman made clear that she supported the program of “enhanced interrogation,” which included the use of the notorious torture technique of waterboarding.哈曼明确表示，她支持该计划的"强化审讯" ，其中包括使用臭名昭著的酷刑技术waterboarding 。 The letter amounted to a green light for the continuation of the program, which was kept secret from the American people for several more years.信达大开绿灯，以便继续执行计划，该计划一直秘而不宣，从美国人民数年。

In the letter, addressed to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller, Harman discusses a briefing given to a few leading Democratic and Republican congressmen the week before.在信中，给中情局总法律顾问斯科特穆勒，哈曼论述介绍给少数地方领导的民主，共和两党国会议员的前一周。 She says that the briefing “brought home to me the difficult challenges faced by the Central Intelligence Agency in the current threat environment.她说，简报" ，介绍给我面临的艰难挑战，由中央情报机构在当前的威胁环境。 I realize we are at a time when the balance between security and liberty must be constantly evaluated and recalibrated in order to protect our nation and its people from catastrophic terrorist attack…”我意识到，我们正处于一个的时候，两者之间取得平衡的安全和自由，必须不断地评估，并重新调整，以保护我们的国家和它的人民从灾难性的恐怖袭击… … "

Harman reported that at the hearing, Muller “assured us that the [redacted] approved by the Attorney General have been subject to an extensive review by lawyers at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice and the National Security Council and found to be within the law.”哈曼报道说，在听证会上，穆勒， "我们保证， [编辑]批准了由总检察长已经受到了广泛的审查，由律师在中央情报部，新闻部，司法部和国家安全会议，并证实可法会" 。

Harman, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, indicated no disagreement with these legal findings, even though the methods employed by the CIA are clear violations of anti-torture statutes and international treaties.哈曼，他是毕业于哈佛大学法学院，表示无异议，这些法律结果，即使方法受雇于中情局，是明显地违反了反酷刑的法规和国际条约。 She merely questioned whether or not what she later calls “enhanced techniques” were consistent with US policy and whether or not they had been “authorized and approved by the President.”她只是质疑，有没有什么后来她所称的"增强技术"是一致的，与美国的政策，不管他们是否已被"认可并批准了总统" 。

Many of the documents arguing for the legality of torture have never been released to the public.有很多文件，为争论的合法性酷刑从未向公众发表。 However, one such document was leaked to the public—the infamous August 2002 “torture memo,” prepared by Justice Department lawyers—which argued that the president has the constitutional right to torture as part of his war powers.然而，这样一个文件被泄露给公众-臭名昭著的2002年8月"酷刑备忘录" ，准备由司法部律师-其中争辩说，总统有宪法上的权利，酷刑作为他的战争权力。 This memo presumably formed part of the legal rationale presented by the CIA to Harman and others to justify the torture methods.本便笺想必组成部分的法律理据介绍，由中央情报局，以哈曼和其他证明酷刑的方法。

Harman’s acceptance of the legal rationale for torture was in line with the reaction of the entire Democratic Party to the antidemocratic policies implemented by the White House, using the “war on terror” and the attacks of September 11 as a pretext.哈曼在接受法律理酷刑，是不符合的反应，整个民主党向反民主的政策，实行由白宫发起，以"反恐战争"和进攻， 9月11日作为一个借口。

According to a Washington Post article published last month, in 2002 four congressional leaders, including the current speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, another Democrat from California, were “given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators devised to try to make the prisoners talk.”据华盛顿邮报发表的文章上个月，在2002年4国会领袖，其中包括目前的众议院议长，佩洛西，另美国加州民主党，分别为： "鉴于虚拟参观的美国中央情报局的海外拘留地点及苛刻的技术审讯人员设计了设法使囚犯对话" 。

The meeting with Harman in February 2003 evidently also included a discussion of the CIA’s plans to destroy the tapes.会见哈曼在2003年2月，显然还包括一个讨论中情局的计划，以摧毁磁带。 Harman wrote to Muller, “You discussed the fact that there is a videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry.哈曼写信给穆勒， "你们讨论的事实，即有一盘录像带，阿布祖贝达以下他的被捕将被销毁后，总检察长已完成调查工作。 I would urge the Agency to reconsider that plan.”我会促请该机构重新考虑这一计划" 。

Harman does not suggest that the tapes should be preserved because they depict illegal activity and therefore constitute evidence of a crime.哈曼并不意味着录音带，应加以保留，因为他们描绘的非法活动，并因此构成犯罪证据。 She also does not oppose the Bush administration’s determination that the destruction of the tapes would be legal.她也并不反对，布什政府的决心，销毁录音带将是合法的。 Rather, she suggests, “The videotape would be the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future.相反，她认为， "把录像带会是最好的证明该书面记录的是准确的，如果这样的纪录是就成问题，在未来的。 The fact of destruction would reflect badly on the Agency,” she concludes.事实上，销毁，将严重损害该机构" ，她说。 In other words, Harman’s concern was largely one of public relations.或者换句话说，哈曼的关注，主要是其中的公共关系。

The references to an inquiry by the CIA inspector general apparently refers to an examination, carried out by inspector general John Helgerson, into the CIA’s interrogation techniques.对凡出现一项调查由中央情报局督察长，显然是指一项考试，进行了由检察长黑尔格森，成为中央情报局的审讯技术。 The inquiry was completed in the spring of 2004, but there were no public references to it until November 2005.调查完成后，在2004年春天，但没有公开提到它，直到2005年11月。 It was reportedly critical of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques.但据报道，关键的"强化审讯技术" 。

On November 9, 2005, the New York Times published an article citing officials familiar with the report.于2005年11月9日，纽约时报发表了一篇文章，引述官员熟悉这份报告。 According to the Times , the officials “said the report expressed skepticism about the Bush administration view that any ban on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment under the treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States.”据时代 ，官员说： "该报告表示怀疑，布什政府认为，任何禁止残忍，不人道和有辱人格的待遇根据该条约，并不适用于中央情报局盘问的，因为它们发生在海外的人，不是公民的"美国。

The Times exposure of the Inspector General report is another possible motivating factor behind the CIA’s decision to go ahead and destroy the tapes in November 2005.本次曝光的监察长报告，是另一个可能的激励因素背后中情局的决定去做，并摧毁录音带，在2005年11月。 That same month, other reports exposed for the first time the existence of the CIA network of secret prisons.同月，其他报告揭露，为第一时间的存在，中情局的网络秘密监狱。 The government was also being pressed in several court cases to turn over all evidence and records of interrogation.政府也正在压在几个法院的情况下，把所有的证据和记录讯问。

The role of the Democrats in supporting and helping cover up the CIA’s torture program and the subsequent destruction of videotapes ensures that any Congressional investigation will be a whitewash.角色的民主党人支持，并帮助掩饰中情局的酷刑纲领和随后销毁录影带确保任何国会调查将是一个粉饰。 It appears increasingly likely that Democrats will scale down Congressional inquiries on the grounds that the Justice Department has launched its own criminal investigation.看来越来越有可能，民主党人将缩减国会调查意见，理由是，美国司法部已经推出了自己的刑事调查。

Last week, Democrats moved quickly to praise an announcement by Attorney General Michael Mukasey that a criminal investigation will begin.上周，民主党人迅速采取行动，以表扬宣布，总检察长迈克尔mukasey一项刑事调查将开始实施。 Mukasey’s selection of John Durham, a deputy US attorney from Connecticut, has been portrayed in the media and by Democrats as a move to give the investigation greater independence. mukasey的选择约翰达勒姆一人，副检察长，美国康涅狄格州，已被描绘成在媒体和民主党人的一个举动，使调查具有更大的独立性。 This is false.这是假的。 Durham’s work will be subordinate to and filtered by the Justice Department, which means the Bush administration.达勒姆的工作，将服从和过滤的，由司法部，这意味着布什政府。 It will have no “independence” from those who are deeply complicit in the crime that is supposedly under investigation.它不会有任何"台独" ，从那些深深共犯在共同犯罪中是假定正在调查中。

The attitude of sections of the liberal establishment was expressed in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times on January 4.态度路段自由建立有人在一篇社论中，在洛杉矶时报 1月4日。 The Times is the principal newspaper in California—the home state of both Harman and Pelosi. 时代是主要的报纸在加州的家国两哈曼与佩洛西。

The editors wrote that Mukasey “has displayed a commendable sensitivity to appearances” by appointing Durham to lead the criminal investigation.编者写道mukasey "展示了一个值得赞扬的敏感性露面" ，并任命了达勒姆带领刑事调查。 The newspaper said that congressmen “shouldn’t complicate his assignment by forcing key figures in the criminal investigation to testify on Capitol Hill—at least for now.”该报说，国会议员"的情况应该不会变得复杂，他的转让费，迫使关键人物，在刑事调查作证国会山-至少在现在" 。

Meanwhile, the Justice Department investigation will likely be dragged out for an extended period of time and possibly through the end of the Bush administration’s term of office.与此同时，美国司法部的调查很可能会被拖入了一个延长的时间内，并可能通过去年底，布什政府的任期。

By Deirdre Shesgreen由（ Deirdre shesgreen

The first session of the 110th Congress started off with a snap and had plenty of crackle.第一届第110届国会开始时瞬间完成，并已大量裂纹。 But the end was more fizzle than pop.但最终更多消退较流行。

“We had 50 weeks of basically polarization and brinksmanship and two weeks of problem-solving,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country. "我们是50个星期，基本上两极分化和边缘两个星期解决问题，说： "众议员托德充其量的R -城镇和农村。

Democrats were catapulted into power after the 2006 elections on big promises: They would clean up Washington, change course in Iraq and devote new attention to domestic needs.民主党人被弹射到权力后， 2006年的选举中大承诺：他们将清理华盛顿改弦更张，在伊拉克，并致力于新的关注本地市场的需求。

But as lawmakers rushed home for the holidays last week, Republicans were declaring victory for confounding their political foes at almost every turn, with one GOP lawmaker deriding this as the “cave-in Congress.”但作为立法者闻讯赶来，为假期的最后一周，共和党宣称胜利混淆自己的政治宿敌，在几乎每一个转，其中1名共和党国会议员嘲讽，以此作为"窑洞在国会" 。

Even as Democrats trumpeted some meaty achievements — from ethics reform to a minimum-wage increase to a landmark energy bill — their liberal base was fuming over some of the concessions Democrats made.即使民主派吹嘘一些丰富的成就-从伦理学的改革到了最低工资提高到一个具有里程碑意义的能源法案-他们自由基地复明超过部分的让步，民主派取得了。

After bruising battles with the White House and congressional Republicans, Democrats swallowed three bitter pills in the final days of the year:经过瘀伤战役与白宫和国会的共和党人，民主党人吞下三苦药丸在最后几天的一年：

— They handed President George W. Bush $70 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with no strings attached. -他们转交布什总统7 00亿美元资金，用于伊拉克和阿富汗战争，没有任何附加条件。

— They passed a flat extension of a children’s health insurance program — something the GOP had been calling for, for months — after conceding that their efforts to expand the popular program could not overcome Bush’s vetoes. -他们通过一个单位延伸的儿童健康保险计划-一些共和党一直呼吁，几个月-后承认，他们努力扩大流行的节目不能克服布什的否决。

— They approved an 11th-hour, $50 billion tax fix that will shield the middle class from a major tax increase, but without raising additional revenue — violating their self-imposed vow to offset any new spending or tax breaks so as not to worsen the deficit. -他们批准了一项1 1小时， 5 0000000000美元税修补，将盾牌中产阶层从一大加税，但是如果没有增加收入-侵犯了他们的自我强加的誓言，以抵消任何新的开支或税务休息，不使恶化赤字。

“Our members probably went home yesterday happier than … in the 11 years I’ve been here,” said House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "我们的，大家可能回家了昨天更快乐，比… …在11年来我一直在这里， "说，众议院共和党党鞭罗伊钝，俄谟。

Congress’ final weeks were so chaotic that many lawmakers booked multiple flights home because they had no idea when last votes would be cast on a $555 billion omnibus budget loaded with more than 8,000 of lawmakers’ pet projects.国会最后几周都是如此混乱，许多国会议员预定多个航班回家，因为他们没有想到，当上票将投就555000000000美元综合预算满载8000多的议员们在宠物项目。

Where Akin saw polarization and brinksmanship, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., saw idealism and pragmatism, and she said the Senate had “a healthy dose of both this year,” making for bitter fights as well as solid, albeit last-minute, agreements.那里看到类似的极化和边缘，参议员克莱尔麦卡斯基尔和D -莫，看到理想主义和实用主义的，她说，参议院"健康，剂量都在今年， "为苦，打架以及坚实的，尽管最后一一分钟协议。

“At the end of the day it’s not bad what we got done in spite of ourselves,” she said. "在一天结束时，它的不差什么，我们做了，尽管自己， "她说。 But the process “sure isn’t pretty.”但这一进程" ，可以肯定的是，不漂亮" 。

Steven Smith, a political science professor at Washington University, said that with Democrats barely in control of the Senate and a Republican in the White House, “there was essentially a stalemate” on all major legislative initiatives.史蒂文史密斯，一个政治学教授，华盛顿大学说，在同民主党勉强控制着参议院和共和党在白宫" ，有本质上僵持不下， "在所有重大立法举措。 “This was a situation where both parties had the ability to veto the highest priorities of the other.” "这是一个的情况下，双方有能力否决最高优先事项他人的利益" 。

He said the 49-member Republican minority in the Senate used threats of a filibuster to protect Bush from embarrassing vetoes on Iraq and other matters.他说， 49名成员的少数共和党在参议院中使用威胁的后尘，以保障布什尴尬否决对伊拉克和其他事项。 In the process, he said, they were able to make the Democrats look bad “for not governing an institution they seemed to control.”在这个过程中，他说，不仅他们能够继续进行民主派人士看坏" ，不执政的一个机构，他们似乎控制" 。

EARLY VICTORIES 早期的胜利

The messy ending to the first half of this Congress stands out all the more because of its sharp beginning.混乱结局上半年，这个国会脱颖而出时候都更由于其鲜明的开端。

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the first woman to be speaker of the House, swept into office with a 100-hour legislative blitz.众议员佩洛西17日对布什的D -加州，第一女被众议院议长，雷厉风行，严谨细致办公室与100小时的立法突击。 With the help of moderate Republicans, Democrats racked up a raft of early victories: cutting interest rates on student loans, enacting long-stalled recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and raising the minimum wage, among other things.借助温和派共和党人，民主党人为此伤透了筏早期胜利：减息对学生贷款，制定长期陷于停顿的建议911调查委员会，并提高了最低工资，其他的事情。

“Those are issues that the American people wanted to see us address, and we did,” said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. "这些问题对美国人民希望看到我们地址，而且我们也说： "众议员威廉威廉莱西斯粘土和D -圣。 Louis.路易。 “And we became more fiscally responsible than previous Congresses and this administration.” "我们变得更负责任的财政比以前的人大和政府的" 。

Indeed, some Republicans found themselves cheering the Democrats’ final spending package as one that was much better than any they ever produced.事实上，一些共和党人也发现自己的欢呼声中，民主党人最终消费包装作为一个好多了，比任何他们有否产生。 Bush forced Democrats to stick to his bottom line, something he never did when the GOP was in control, rather than allow them to add $22 billion in new spending.布什被迫民主党人坚持自己的底线，他从来没有当共和党控制，而不是让他们补充220亿美元的新的开支。

“We’re leaving with Bush’s numbers plus some emergency spending for things we can support,” such as veterans care, said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville. "我们正在离开与布什的人数还要加上一些应急支出的东西，我们可以支持" ，如退伍军人的照顾，说，众议员约翰shimkus法，俄- collinsville 。 With that new financial restraint, he said, “we’re going back to our base in a Democratic majority. … That’sa pretty good Christmas present.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the budget deal was “really a heartbreak” because Democrats wanted desperately to boost spending for health care, education and other programs they felt have been ignored. Democrats did shift money to fill some of their priorities but failed to force Bush to agree to a higher overall budget number.

WHITE HOUSE POWER

Durbin said Democrats had no options in the budget showdown because they simply did not have the votes to override Bush’s threatened veto.

“In the end there was only one card that could be played: the Newt Gingrich government shut-down card,” Durbin said, referring to the standoff between the former GOP House speaker and President Bill Clinton that led to government offices being shuttered and a political fallout for the GOP. “In the end there was only one card that could be played: the Newt Gingrich government shut-down card,” Durbin said, referring to the standoff between the former GOP House speaker and President Bill Clinton that led to government offices being shuttered and a political fallout for the GOP. “We were never going to let that happen, and the president knew it,” Durbin said.

Democrats also saw the collapse of a sweeping and controversial immigration reform package. They failed to override Bush’s veto of a bill to lift restrictions on government funding for stem cell research. And most irksome to their liberal supporters, they failed to win a raft of Iraq votes that would have imposed withdrawal timetables for US troops or restricted war funding.

Pelosi said Congress had “put a lot of pressure on the administration” over the war through “very intense oversight.” But, she conceded, “No one is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn’t change that (the course of the war) than I am.” Pelosi said Congress had “put a lot of pressure on the administration” over the war through “very intense oversight.” But, she conceded, “No one is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn’t change that (the course of the war) than I am.”

Pelosi said she and other Democrats made one miscalculation on that front: They underestimated the GOP’s willingness to rally behind an unpopular president on an unpopular issue.

Republicans said they were unified against the Democrats’ “slow-bleed” strategy for Iraq.

Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., said Democrats spent “an awful lot of time redoing” varying Iraq votes to send “a message to their extreme left-wing base.” Now that the United States is seeing some military progress in Iraq, he said, “I think we’ll see them temper their political efforts” on the war. Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., said Democrats spent “an awful lot of time redoing” varying Iraq votes to send “a message to their extreme left-wing base.” Now that the United States is seeing some military progress in Iraq, he said, “I think we’ll see them temper their political efforts” on the war.

SETTING UP FOR ‘08

But that’s unlikely when Congress reconvenes next month.

“We will keep pushing the president to come up with withdrawal dates, with benchmarks, with time lines, and he will resist all of it,” Clay said. “So it’ll be a test of wills again.”

At the same time, Democrats said they hoped to shine a brighter spotlight on some new domestic issues. Pelosi said health care would be front and center, along with legislation to address global warming.

Durbin said he expected a major push on economic issues and the mortgage crisis in particular.

But others said the main issue on the agenda would be politics. With next year’s presidential race and congressional elections at full throttle, there will be “more of the same” gridlock, said Smith, the Washington University professor.

“Legislative accomplishments will not be their chief goal,” he said. “Setting themselves up for 2008 will be.”

Megan Boehnke of the Post-Dispatch Washington bureau contributed to this story.

The GOP is negotiating in bad faith, Obey says.

By Jonathan Weisman

A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president’s spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers’ pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration’s top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

”Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president’s numbers,” Obey said. “I was willing to listen to the argument that we ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it.”

House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president’s request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.

”If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they’re smoking something illegal,” he said.

Obey’s proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Obey’s proposal would ax about 9500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of that money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and Congress has no intention of eliminating the Army Corps.

Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to reach Bush’s bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from the president’s priorities. One possibility would be funding for abstinence education. Other targets could be nuclear weapons research and development in the Energy Department, NASA programs and high-technology border security efforts that have come under criticism for being wasteful and ineffective, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
ad_icon

Obey’s proposal did not move the White House to negotiate, spokesman Tony Fratto said. “Different day, different Democrat, different direction. Our position hasn’t changed,” Fratto said.

House Republican leaders would be happy to take Obey’s offer on spending, GOP aides said yesterday. But rank-and-file lawmakers from both parties could revolt. Home-district projects - known as earmarks - were stripped from the fiscal 2007 spending bills early this year, after Democrats took control of Congress and hastily disposed of budget bills their Republican predecessors had not passed. Earmarks were also eliminated from the 2006 appropriations bill that funded labor, health and education programs, the biggest domestic spending bill of the year.

”There are a lot of people who were very disappointed last year when nobody got any earmarks. If they do it again for the second year in a row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow,” said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400,000 he needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin Feb. 12. If they do it again for the second year in a row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow,” said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400000 he needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin Feb. 12.

LaHood is not the only Republican appropriator who is angry at the White House and at GOP leaders who have refused to negotiate with Democrats on domestic spending levels. In recent days, Rep. David L. Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of energy and water projects, had a heated discussion with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), arguing that Boehner should come off his hard line. In recent days, Rep. David L. Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of energy and water projects, had a heated discussion with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), arguing that Boehner should come off his hard line.

Rep. James T. Walsh (NY), another senior Republican appropriator, took to the House floor to argue: “If the proposal is to split the difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president’s request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an answer.” Rep. James T. Walsh (NY), another senior Republican appropriator, took to the House floor to argue: “If the proposal is to split the difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president’s request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an answer.”

But most Republicans are expected to fall in line, as the GOP leadership pushes to regain the mantle of small-government conservatism. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), another member of the Appropriations Committee, said Republican lawmakers will face no political jeopardy for not bringing money home for their districts, because they can simply blame Democrats.

”The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to realize the White House always wins these spending contests,” he said, advising her to “cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still relevant” to the legislative process. ”The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to realize the White House always wins these spending contests,” he said, advising her to “cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still relevant” to the legislative process.

That still leaves the war-funding issue unresolved. Democratic leadership aides on Capitol Hill concede that at some point, Republicans can add some money for Iraq as a stripped-down spending bill winds through Congress. But plans for a quick end to the showdown appear to be fading.

”It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally irresponsible,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (DW.Va.) said. ”It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally irresponsible, ” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (DW.Va.) said.

The fix was in

US elections are rigged long before the voting results are falsified.

The news media helps the process along by making (or trying to make) legitimate candidates disappear.

In the 2008 campaign for president, the candidate the news media is trying to trivialize and marginalize Ron Paul.

In 1992, the “disappeared” candidate was Democrat Larry Agran.

The good news is that the Internet has made this kind of chicanery, much more difficult.

IN A MATCH UP with Giuliani there is no more than a 3 point difference between Clinton, Obama or Gore in our three poll moving average. What this means is that people are making their choices based on party rather than individual.

One thing could change this dramatically: if one candidate became an easier target for the Republicans than the others. And only one candidate is a logical contender for this dismal role: Hillary Clinton. Clinton is currently in a bubble of protection created by a media that steadfastly refuses to mention her sordid past. But if the bubble is burst - as it likely will be - by the Republicans after her nomination, it will be a whole different ball game.

There is simply no comparison between Obama and Edwards on the one hand and Clinton on the other when it comes to personal integrity. The former are far from perfect but it is likely that we have heard the worst about each. This is not the case with Clinton, witness the Chinatown funny money scandal that much of the media is choosing to ignore.

Proposal Would Involve FISA Court in Warrants

By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu

Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government’s authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue broad orders approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. To issue an order, the court would not need to identify a particular target overseas, but it would have to determine that those being targeted are “likely,” in fact, overseas.

If a foreign target’s communications to a person inside the United States reaches a “significant” number, then an court order based on probable cause would be required. It is unclear how “significant” would be defined.

Under a sunset provision, the authority would have to be revisited in six months.

“Given the continued threat environment and some recent technical developments, I have become convinced that we must take some immediate, but interim, step to improve collection of foreign intelligence in a manner that doesn’t compromise civil liberties of US citizens,” said John D. Rockefeller (DW.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In recent days, the administration has proposed giving the attorney general sole authority to authorize the surveillance, suggesting that if Democrats do not act quickly Americans would be at greater risk of attack.

Democrats said that giving sole authority to the attorney general would be unacceptable and insisted that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have an oversight role.

Some civil liberties advocates were pleased.

“It is vastly better than the administration’s bill and preserves the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

Others, including some Democrats, said that granting the government authority to intercept calls with broad warrants could allow a large number of phone calls and e-mails of US individuals and companies to be intercepted, as well.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union ’s Washington legislative office, contended that Democrats are “capitulating to the politics of fear.”

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that the proposal, while better than the administration’s, “does not have adequate safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy.”

Still, Democratic leaders are holding out hope of reaching a deal and passing legislation before leaving for the August recess.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires the government to obtain an order from a secret court to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist or intelligence suspects in the United States. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush authorized a secret warrantless wiretapping program that allowed the National Security Agency to intercept communications between individuals in the United States and others overseas when at least one of them is suspected of links to terrorism.

The full extent of that program has never been disclosed. In January, it was put under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, though officials have never made public the terms of the court’s oversight.

In recent weeks, the administration has warned that the United States is under heightened threat of another terrorist attack. It is seeking broadened authority to step up surveillance, but for now, Democrats do not want to provide that power indefinitely. Congressional leaders met with Bush yesterday at the White House , where they discussed the administration’s wiretapping authority.

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell submitted a proposal to Congress that asked for the authority to intercept without a court order any international phone call or e-mail between a surveillance target outside the United States and any person in the United States.

Yesterday, the administration updated its proposal by saying that the attorney general and the director of national intelligence could authorize such surveillance and that the guidelines on what constitutes an overseas target be subject to some court review. But the surveillance could begin before the court review and the oversight would be limited.

A Bush administration official, requesting anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, “What we want to be careful about is not having FISA take on a role for which it was never intended, which is to essentially . . 。 . 。 extend privacy rights to foreigners located in foreign lands.”

A Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations said that if communications are determined to involve US persons, then their names would be removed before any transcript is disseminated unless they were relevant to a foreign terrorism investigation.

If further investigation were needed, “individualized warrants for Americans” would be required, according to a proposal by conservative House Democrats led by Reps. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer ( Ala. ) and Jane Harman ( Calif. ). It is unclear what would specifically trigger that requirement.

The Democrats ‘ proposal also would compel compliance by private companies.

It would also affirm that no court order is needed to eavesdrop on communications that begin and end outside the United States, even if routed through the United States.

TOP US Democrats condemned as “disgraceful” and a “betrayal” President George W. Bush’s decision today to commute the jail term of former senior White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people,” Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said in a statement.

Mr Bush commuted the 30-month jail term imposed on Libby for lying to federal investigators in a case over an outed spy which highlighted doubts about the administration’s case for the war in Iraq.

Ms Pelosi’s condemnation echoed that of the other top Democrat in Congress, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.

“The President’s decision to commute Mr Libby’s sentence is disgraceful,” Mr Reid said.

“Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war.

“Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone,” Mr Reid said in a statement.

“The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice-President’s chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

Announcing his decision to commute the term, Mr Bush said in a statement: “I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive.”

Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office issued a short statement saying he “supports the President’s decision”.

Libby was found guilty of lying to federal investigators in a case probing whether White House officials had leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame, but not of actually leaking her name to the press in July 2003.

It was alleged that Ms Plame’s cover as a CIA agent was blown to avenge criticism of the White House’s decision to go to war by her husband, ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, who argued the case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was flawed. It was alleged that Ms Plame’s cover as a CIA agent was blown to avenge criticism of the White House’s decision to go to war by her husband, ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, who argued the case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was flawed.

Mr Wilson said the Bush administration was “painting this almost as a compromise here, saying the President could have pardoned Scooter Libby, but rather he commuted the sentence.

“I would remind people that this is the president who was governor of Texas (and) refused to commute the first death sentence of a female prisoner, even after the Pope pleaded for clemency,” he said.

Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential hopeful, said the “cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.

“George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences.”

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said “accountability has been in short supply in this Bush administration, and this commutation fits that pattern”.

Yet another Democratic Senator, Charles Schumer, weighed in to criticise Mr Bush’s decision, citing principles of US justice ahead of the nation’s July 4 anniversary of independence.

“One of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle,” he said.

AFP

John Doraemi

See these comments:

“Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people.”[1]

What is he saying?

This is couched in diplomatic language, but the intention is clear. He is not buying the Bushies’ excuses for September 11th 2001. He’s attributing this lack of trust to the “American people,” which polls on 9/11 support. But he is also going out on a political limb and making a value judgment as to whether the Bush regime “deserve” any trust on September 11th issues.

Very few politicians have dared challenge the regime on September 11th. Gore is the exception here, which is notable. These are carefully chosen words that appear in his book The Assault on Reason as well as on the Guardian website and “ progressive ” US websites.

A lot of very committed peope have been shouting about the regime’s “failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack” (as well as during the actual attacks) for a very long time, and yet are routinely attacked for doing so — sometimes on the very same websites that re-published Gore’s article. A lot of very committed peope have been shouting about the regime’s “failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack” (as well as during the actual attacks) for a very long time, and yet are routinely attacked for doing so — sometimes on the very same websites that re-published Gore’s article. Well how’s that for a bit of hypocrisy?

Back in 2004, Gore touched upon some 9/11 issues in a speech:

“Bush described this rigorous and formal analysis as just guessing. If that’s all the respect he has for reports given to him by the CIA, then perhaps it explains why he completely ignored the warning he received on August 6 th, 2001, that bin Laden was determined to attack our country . From all appearances, he never gave a second thought on that report until he finished reading My Pet Goat on September 11 th.” [2]

This is — if you can believe it — also diplomatic language, because the other explanation of Bush’s actions is too politically unthinkable for him to say out loud. Gore belongs to a political caste that doesn’t accuse others of the caste of criminality, or of high treason. It’s just not done.

For clarity sake, let’s have no mistakes here. The August 6 PDB is NOT the only warning this regime received by a long shot. Bush himself was moved out of his high rise hotel, by his own Secret Service, in Genoa Italy in July 2001 because of a warning of an “Al Qaeda plot” to hijack commercial airliners and “crash them into the summit of industrialized nations.” [3]The ignorance excuse ends right there. Bush himself was moved out of his high rise hotel, by his own Secret Service, in Genoa Italy in July 2001 because of a warning of an “Al Qaeda plot” to hijack commercial airliners and “crash them into the summit of industrialized nations.” [3]The ignorance excuse ends right there.

Many dozens of warnings [4]were reported by mainstream news organizations. Even CIA head George Tenet and CIA Counterterrorism head Cofer Black warned the administration ,[5] every member of the cabinet – including Bush in Crawford TX [6] — of impending and imminent attacks.

Nothing was done about these warnings.

Gore elaborates on similar warnings received during his tenure as Vice President:

“The only warnings of this nature that remotely resembled the one given to George Bush was about the so-called Millenium threats predicted for the end of the year 1999 and less-specific warnings about the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. In both cases these warnings in the President’s Daily Briefing were followed, immediately, the same day - by the beginning of urgent daily meetings in the White House of all of the agencies and offices involved in preparing our nation to prevent the threatened attack.” [7] In both cases these warnings in the President’s Daily Briefing were followed, immediately, the same day - by the beginning of urgent daily meetings in the White House of all of the agencies and offices involved in preparing our nation to prevent the threatened attack. ” [7]

I think it’s safe to say that Gore smells a rat. Perhaps he can’t come right out and say it, but he’s leaving clues for others to take up and pursue. He appears on the surface to have accepted some of the excuses put out by the regime, but in other contexts he flatly rebukes them and seeks more investigation.

That is the primary purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement, to uncover the ugly buried truth that the Bushies have made “classified.” Gore is at least to some extent working toward the same ends.

Notes.

[1] The Guardian/UK, A Drive For Global Domination Has Put Us In Greater Danger, by Al Gore, excerpt from The Assault on Reason , http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2086737,00.html

[2] Al Gore Speaks on Iraq, truthout | Speech, Monday 18 October 2004, Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004X.shtml
[3] LA Times, Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit, September 27, 2001, http://www.prisonplanet.com/Italy_Tells_of_Threat_at_Genoa_Summit.htm
[4] Complete 911 Timeline: Foreign Intelligence Agency Attack Warnings, click here

[5] Tenet told 9/11 panel that he warned Rice of Al Qaeda Former CIA head said she took threat seriously, By Dan Eggen and Robin Wright, Washington Post | October 3, 2006, click here

[6] They Knew, Tenet’s Book Reveals 9/11 Perjury, http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/05/they-knew-tenets-book-reveals-9-11.html
[7] Al Gore Speaks on Iraq, truthout | Speech, Monday 18 October 2004, Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004X.shtml

Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

President George W. Bush won a battle over nearly $100 billion to fund the Iraq war as Democratic leaders in Congress on Tuesday abandoned efforts to withdraw troops for now but pledged to try again in July.

Instead of setting schedules for pulling US troops, it appeared the Democratic-run Congress and the Republican White House agreed for the first time to include conditions prodding Baghdad to make better progress toward quelling violence or risk losing around $1.3 billion in US reconstruction aid.

Bush could waive the provision, however.

Congress wants to deliver by week’s end the $100 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.

With the Iraq funding deal, Democrats said the first minimum wage increase in a decade, a high priority for them, would be included. Congress already has approved tax breaks for small businesses to go along with the wage hike.

Democrats also will try to attach about $20 billion in domestic initiatives — from farm aid and better health care for veterans, to health insurance for poor children and money to continue rebuilding states hit by hurricanes in 2005.

Negotiations between the White House and Congress were continuing on details, however.

House liberals were disappointed by the emerging deal, and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who signed off on the plan, said she opposed the Iraq portion of it.

VOTE LATER THIS WEEK

Pelosi said she was “not likely to vote for something that does not have a timetable” for withdrawing troops from the war that has killed at least 3,420 US soldiers and wounded more than 34,000. Pelosi said she was “not likely to vote for something that does not have a timetable” for withdrawing troops from the war that has killed at least 3420 US soldiers and wounded more than 34000.

But enough Republicans are expected to join some Democrats in backing the Iraq measure to ensure passage if it is put to a vote later this week, as planned by Pelosi.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin said Democrats will move the troop withdrawal fight to another bill. “The practical result of this would be we would transfer the debate on the Iraqi war” from the current emergency funding bill to fiscal 2008 war spending bills moving through Congress starting in July, he said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the negotiated measure would provide “the funding and flexibility the forces need. That’s what we’ve wanted all along.”

Bush vetoed Congress’ first version of this year’s emergency war funds bill because it set an Oct. 1 deadline for starting to pull most of the 147,000 soldiers out of Iraq, a goal of anti-war Democrats. Bush vetoed Congress’ first version of this year’s emergency war funds bill because it set an Oct. 1 deadline for starting to pull most of the 147000 soldiers out of Iraq, a goal of anti-war Democrats.

In postponing their demand for timetables to withdraw combat troops, Democrats acknowledged the political realities.

“The president has made it very clear he’s not going to sign timelines (for withdrawing troops). We can’t pass timelines over his veto,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters.

Virginia Democratic Rep. James Moran, who pushed for withdrawing troops, said Democrats would get blamed for any further hang-ups in passing the war funds. “The president has the bully pulpit,” Moran said.

While disappointing to some Democrats who say they won control of Congress last November largely because voters wanted an end to the 4-year-old Iraq war, it was welcome news for Republicans who have argued Congress should not be “micro-managing” the war. While disappointing to some Democrats who say they won control of Congress last November largely because voters wanted an end to the 4-year-old Iraq war, it was welcome news for Republicans who have argued Congress should not be “micro-managing” the war 。

“Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

But some Democrats argued that even with a weaker bill, they have ended four years of “rubber stamp” war funding bills of the previous Republican-run Congress.

Bush and most Republicans have argued that setting dates for withdrawing US troops would rob military commanders of the flexibility they need to conduct the war.

Despite those charges, even some congressional Republicans, Boehner among them, have spoken of autumn as the timeframe for reassessing progress in Iraq and possibly producing “Plan B.”

Barry Grey

After weeks of public posturing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Democrats in the House of Representatives secured passage Friday of an emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what amounts to a colossal political fraud, they presented their “Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act” as a measure to force an end to the war in Iraq by September 1, 2008.

It does nothing of the kind. Even if a similar Democratic measure were to be passed in the Senate—and it will not—and the final bill were to survive a presidential veto—a political impossibility—the resulting law would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Even if a similar Democratic measure were to be passed in the Senate—and it will not—and the final bill were to survive a presidential veto—a political impossibility—the resulting law would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November’s congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November’s congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress.

In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to declare her party’s support for the US military and the so-called “war on terror,” calling the bill “a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq” so they could concentrate on Afghanistan, “where the war on terrorism is.” In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to declare her party’s support for the US military and the so-called “war on terror,” calling the bill “a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq” so they could concentrate on Afghanistan, “where the war on terrorism is.”

The Bush administration has denounced the bill and promised to veto it, in line with the White House’s blanket opposition to any conditions, no matter how toothless, being placed on its war-making powers.

The bill passed by the narrowest possible margin, with 218 votes in favor and 212 opposed. Only two Republicans voted for the bill and 14 Democrats voted against it.

The conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill are themselves so conditional as to be meaningless. Under the measure, Bush would be obliged to certify to Congress on July 1, 2007 and again on October 1, 2007 that the Iraqi government has made progress in meeting certain benchmarks, such as containing sectarian violence, reining in militias, and reforming the constitution. Under the measure, Bush would be obliged to certify to Congress on July 1, 2007 and again on October 1, 2007 that the Iraqi government has made progress in meeting certain benchmarks, such as containing sectarian violence, reining in militias, and reforming the constitution 。 Should Bush fail to go through the motions of making such a certification, withdrawal of US combat troops would begin. Even if the government certified progress, US combat troops would be withdrawn by September 1, 2008.

But this “final deadline” could be extended if the administration obtained approval from Congress. In any event, less than half of the 140,000 US troops currently in Iraq are designated as combat forces, meaning that 75,000 or more troops would remain after the “deadline” to conduct counterinsurgency operations, train Iraqi forces, police borders and protect US assets. In any event, less than half of the 140000 US troops currently in Iraq are designated as combat forces, meaning that 75000 or more troops would remain after the “deadline” to conduct counterinsurgency operations, train Iraqi forces, police borders and protect US assets.

As New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, made clear in an interview with the New York Times last week, if elected she would keep a large force of American troops in Iraq indefinitely to secure “remaining vital national security interests” there. As New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, made clear in an interview with the New York Times last week, if elected she would keep a large force of American troops in Iraq indefinitely to secure “remaining vital national security interests” there. She elaborated on these “national security interests” by noting that Iraq is “right in the heart of the oil region.”

Similarly, the House Democrats’ bill upholds the war aims of US imperialism by listing as one of the benchmarks the passage of an oil law that will open up Iraq’s vast reserves to exploitation by US energy conglomerates.

The bill also requires the Pentagon to observe standards for training, equipping and resting troops before their deployment and limits the duration of Army tours of duty to 365 days. With the military already stretched to the limit, these provisions could actually create obstacles to the further escalation of the war under Bush’s so-called troop “surge” in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Consequently, the bill allows Bush to waive these requirements in the name of “national security,” giving him a free hand to send as many additional troops as he desires.

In the weeks leading up to Friday’s vote on the floor of the House, the White House and congressional Republicans continually called the Democrats’ bluff, exposing their antiwar pretenses by challenging them to cut off war funding. This culminated last week in the passage, with overwhelming Democratic support, of a Republican-sponsored nonbinding Senate resolution vowing to never cut funds for “troops in the field.”

For their part, Pelsoi and the rest of the Democratic leadership continually tacked to the right, readjusting their war spending bill to placate Blue Dog Democrats and other war supporters within the Democratic caucus by further watering down its nominal restrictions on Bush’s war powers. They secured the support of the party’s right wing by dropping language that would have required Bush to obtain congressional support before launching an attack on Iran.

They loaded the bill with allocations for special projects targeted to win over specific congressmen. Thus the final result includes $25 million for spinach farmers in California, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, $15 million for Louisiana rice fields and $120 million for shrimp fishermen.

As Pelosi and her subordinates scrambled to assemble the necessary 218 votes to secure passage, groups on the so-called liberal wing of the party declared their support, including the Congressional Black Caucus and MoveOn.org.

The critical role was played by the misnamed “Out of Iraq Caucus” of House Democrats. This group of some 70 congressmen has postured as the most militant critics of the war. Their key leaders, such as Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, both of California, have been paraded before antiwar demonstrators by protest organizers as living proof that the Democratic Party can be pressured to end the war.

Pelosi dealt with them through a combination of threats and inducements. The house speaker reportedly warned California Rep. Barbara Lee, another leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that she would be stripped of her post on the powerful House Appropriations Committee if she sought to block passage of the bill.

On Thursday, Lee, Woolsey, Waters and company insured passage of the bill at a closed-door session with Pelosi. The Washington Post reported on Friday:

“As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised ten.”

Lee, the author of a bill that would supposedly withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, said, “While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.” Lee, the author of a bill that would supposedly withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, said, “While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.”

Waters said the leaders of the caucus had told their members, “We don’t want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy’s speakership.”

In the debate on the floor of the House, supposedly antiwar liberals denounced the war, and proceeded to call for a vote to fund it. Typical were the remarks of Jim McDermott of Washington State, who declared, “The Iraq war is a fraud… Perpetuating it is a tragedy,” and then announced he would vote for the war funding measure.

Virtually all of the Democratic speakers wrapped themselves in the flag and declared their unconditional “support for the troops.” According to one press report: “In the closing round of the debate, most Democrats focused on elements of the bill that they said would protect American troops by requiring better training and longer periods of rest between deployments.” Virtually all of the Democratic speakers wrapped themselves in the flag and declared their unconditional “support for the troops.” According to one press report: “In the closing round of the debate, most Democrats focused on elements of the bill that they said would protect American troops by requiring better training and longer periods of rest between deployments.”

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who heads the Armed Services Committee, said the bill would strengthen the US military, which has been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’m deeply concerned about the readiness of our forces,” he said.

The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world.

The differences between those within the political establishment who favor continued escalation of the war and those who seek to continue the colonial occupation with reduced US troops are purely tactical. They have to do with the best means of salvaging the US debacle in Iraq by killing and brutalizing more Iraqis, in order to secure US control of the Middle East.

The real political purpose of the Democrats’ bill was indicated in an interview this week on the “Democracy Now” radio program with Robert Borosage, a long-time Democratic Party operative and contributing editor at the Nation magazine. Arguing in support of the war spending bill, he said, “The question is about, can you create a symbolic vote—because the president has vowed to veto it if it passes—a symbolic vote that unites the opponents of the war and shows that there’sa majority in the Congress now united about a date certain to get the troops out.” Arguing in support of the war spending bill, he said, “The question is about, can you create a symbolic vote—because the president has vowed to veto it if it passes—a symbolic vote that unites the opponents of the war and shows that there’sa majority in the Congress now united about a date certain to get the troops out.”

In other words, a measure that will have no effect on the war, but will promote the fiction that the Democratic Party is in some way a vehicle for the antiwar sentiments of the people, and thereby keep social opposition within the bounds of the two-party system. In other words, a measure that will have no effect on the war, but will promote the fiction that the Democratic Party is in some way a vehicle for the antiwar sentiments of the people, and thereby keep social opposition within the bounds of the two- party system.

In this critical task for the American ruling elite, forces like the Out of Iraq Caucus and their “left” allies in the protest movement play a crucial role. They serve not to end the war, but to provide a right-wing, pro-war party with a left-wing, antiwar gloss, the better to block the emergence of an independent movement of working people against war, repression and social inequality.

Four-and-a-half months after the election, in which the people expressed their opposition to the war, the result is the opposite of their wishes. Tens of thousands more troops are being deployed, the carnage and death are increasing, and US military spokesmen like Gen. David Petraeus are speaking of an escalation unlimited in both size and duration.

Ending the catastrophe inflicted by American imperialism on Iraq, and preventing new wars in Iran and elsewhere, requires a complete political break with the Democratic Party and the two-party system. It requires the independent political mobilization of working people, both in the US and internationally, in a class-conscious socialist movement.

We urge all those who agree with this perspective to make preparations to attend the Emergency Conference Against War sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site , the Socialist Equality Party and the International Students for Social Equality on the weekend of March 31-April 1.