(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

You can't go wrong doing the opposite of almost anything Sen. Saxby "Toy Soldier" Chambliss, the man who specializes in smearing real soldiers like Max Cleland, proposes. And Dianne Feinstein, the woman who's never met a war or black-box op she didn't like? Rep. Jim McGovern, on the other hand, is a rare voice of reason:

A roundtable discussion on Afghanistan strategy from This Week with George Stephanopoulous:

STEPHANOPOULOS:There's a report in Newsweek this morning -- it's actually on the cover of Newsweek, where the vice president is pointing out that this year we're going to spend about $65 billion in Afghanistan, about $2.25 billion in Pakistan. And according to the report in Newsweek, this is what the vice president went on to say in the National Security Council meeting: "By my calculations, that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question: Al Qaida is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?"

What's the answer?

FEINSTEIN: Well, this whole situation is a bit of a conundrum. I basically agree with Senator Chambliss in what he said. I think reconciliation -- the first thing has to be to stop the violence. It has to be security. The Taliban has to know it cannot take over all of Afghanistan because the next step in Pakistan. And that's very serious.

And the Pakistanis are only recently beginning to show, I think, their mettle. I think Swat was a big wake-up call for them. I listened to the Pakistani foreign minister yesterday, and they -- they seemed to have much more get-up-and-go, to really be -- be able to work with us in securing some of the FATA areas and other -- other areas. So I think that -- that's really critical.

This is not an easy situation. Nothing is straightforward. Our allies have 39,000 troops. That's a lot of people over there. They, I gather, will continue their involvement on that level. I think we ought to press for them to increase it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not going to happen.

FEINSTEIN: I think obviously -- I know it's not, but financially, we ought to have more financing from the rest of the world community. We cannot be everyone's gatekeeper, everyone's policeman, and I think what's lacking in the world is some universality of putting together movements which can change the dynamics in difficult situations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: General Keane, what do we do now in Pakistan? Three major attacks in the last week. Yesterday, the most brazen attack yet, the insurgents take over their army headquarters. It would be like coming in to the Pentagon. And how do you see the interrelationship between putting more troops in Afghanistan and putting more pressure on the situation in -- in Pakistan?

KEANE: Yes, the elephant in the room with Pakistan -- and, also, to a certain degree, with Afghanistan -- has always been, their lack of understanding that we're going to stay in that region. They -- they're not sure we are.

And -- and given our track record in Afghanistan and also in Pakistan, there's reason for that skepticism. That's why Musharraf and this regime to this day has a hedging strategy with the Taliban. We have to convince them that we're there, that Pakistan's stability is in our national interest. And we also have to prove that, as well, by stabilizing Afghanistan.

I agree with the senators. If we ever lost in Afghanistan, that contributes directly to destabilizing Pakistan. So our actions in Afghanistan relate clearly to Pakistan.

KEANE: The other thing, to get specifically to your point, we're starting to make some headway with Kiyani and the generals in Pakistan, to pull forces away from the Indian front, so to speak. We have great difficulty convincing them that the major threat to the nation-state is, in fact, the ranging insurgency inside the nation- state and not the external threat of India. To us, it's self-evident, but to them it's not.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not.

KEANE: And that's the reality of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're just about out of time. I want to go once around the table with this question: What's the one thing you want President Obama to have in mind as he makes these decisions?

CHAMBLISS: Our troops and the stability of our troops and -- and the fact that we're giving our troops what they need. And I mean, from the top down, we've got to make a decision from the leadership standpoint whether we're giving more troops, but we've still got to make that commitment of making sure that we're enforcing and reinforcing them like we need to.

MCGOVERN: I would urge them to keep in mind that stabilizing Afghanistan should not mean and does not mean enlarging our military footprint there. I think it would be counterproductive.

I also think we're going bankrupt. We have wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, hundreds of billions of dollars that are all going on to our credit card. Our kids and our grandkids are paying for this. You know, we need to be smarter about where we deploy our -- our resources. And I think enlarging our military footprint in Afghanistan would be a mistake.

We need to come up with a strategy that includes an exit strategy because it'll also put pressure on the government of Afghanistan to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far.

September 15, 2009 PBS News Hour

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)

There are just a few days left in the PCCC / DFA campaign to Add Your Name to an ad demanding a strong public option and select the next Senator(s) to target. So far, it looks like it's Max Baucus by a good margin, with Kerry second, Feinstein third and Lieberman fourth.

Personally, as much as I loathe my Senator Feinstein's attitude, I think it's time to amp up the pressure on Lieberman, who is trying to slow down the process in order to hobble it.

Go here and place your vote for who to target. Voting ends Monday morning.

John Amato:

Nancy Pelosi is once again vindicated by the actions of the CIA and Dick Cheney. Darth Vader continually opens his mouth to defend his horrific actions, but as more information leaks out it's quite obvious that he had no regard for the rule of law or the Constitution. The new breaking story is that Cheney told the CIA to keep their mouths shut and not inform Congress of what they were up to. This should be reviewed to see if he broke the law.

Normally this would be a shocking revelation under any other administration, but with Bush and Cheney---this is the norm.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta's June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Panetta did not agree. Upon learning of the program June 23 from within the CIA, Panetta terminated it and the next day called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to inform them of the program and that it was canceled.

From Fox News Sunday, Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn are asked about the recent revelation that the CIA was asked by the Bush administration not to reveal one of their programs to members of Congress.

FEINSTEIN: Oh, I think this is a problem, obviously. This is a big problem, because the law is very clear. And I understand the need of the day, which was when America was in shock, when we had been hit in a way we’d never contemplated, where we had massive loss of life, where there was a major effort to be able to respond and -- but this -- see, I don’t -- I think you weaken your case when you go outside of the law.

Feinstein feels the concealment may have broken the law and has no problems with Attorney Gen. Holder appointing an independent I.G. to investigate the Bush administrations interrogation methods. Cornyn's response is predictable.

WALLACE: In our final moments, I want to turn to another subject, and this involves your role, Senator Feinstein, as chair of the Intelligence Committee.

CIA director Panetta briefed you recently on an 8-year-old program that he had stopped but that Congress had never been told about. Now there are reports that Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to tell Congress about it.

One, should Congress have been told about this program, which apparently was never fully implemented? And what do you make of the vice president’s apparent role in telling the CIA not to brief Congress?

FEINSTEIN: The answer is yes, Congress should have been told. We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind of sensitive program.

Director Panetta did brief us two weeks ago -- I believe it was on the 24th of June -- said he had just learned about the program, described it to us, indicated that he had canceled it and, as had been reported, did tell us that he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress. This is...

WALLACE: And what do you think of that?

Continue reading »

In the last few days, there has been a significant shift in the political winds in Washington towards real health care reform, with a robust public health insurance option at its heart. The last thing we need is someone nay-saying that reform won't pass.

Why, then, is Senator Diane Feinstein doing just that, saying she's not sure reform is going to pass? She should help us make history, not stand in the way!

Sign the petition urging Feinstein to stand up for Californians and America.

Now, let's take a look at the landscape.

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

With DINOs like DiFi, who needs to worry about Republicans?

President Barack Obama may not have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said.

“I don’t know that he has the votes right now,” Feinstein said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.” Controlling costs of the new system is a “difficult subject.”

So the very wealthy DiFi, who hasn't met an appropriation she wouldn't try to swing to her husband's company and ended up having to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations committee when this conflict came to light, and lucky recipient of free healthcare, courtesy of the U.S. Senate, doesn't think that the 59 (nay, 60, if Franken ever gets his seat) Democrats can actually pull it together to vote for the health care reform that a HUGE percentage of Americans want?

Pardon my French, Di, but WHY THE FRAK NOT???? Her answers don't make a lot of sense, frankly:

FEINSTEIN: Ergo, you have enormous problems in my state. California’s bigger than the populations of 21 states and the District of Columbia put together. We have an enormous health care industry, 350 hospitals. University of California alone has 34,000 health care workers, has health care worth $4 billion a year. So it’s complicated. Additionally, the state is in a state of financial catastrophe. I think that’s clear. So, if you change the Medicaid rate, for example, it has an impact on California between $1 billion and $5 billion a year. Now, how could I support that? Because it would take down the state.

Er...huh? Does the fact that these costs are offset by the savings to employers not come into play? How about the fact that by creating a public option, health care costs would be a lower percentage of the average income to individuals and companies? How about the greater costs we all absorb now to cover the uninsured and underinsured? This is not that complicated: COVERING EVERYONE WILL SAVE LIVES AND MONEY.

Then Feinstein becomes even more puzzling:

You also have enormous profit centers in the health care industry, in pharmaceuticals, in medical insurance. And I wonder about these profit centers. Because, unless you have some method to control these profits, premiums continue to rise in the private sector, as they have over the past eight years, substantially.

Therefore, controlling costs is a very major and difficult subject, as long as you have a large private-sector involvement. So this needs to be worked out.

The profits in health care are obscene. Look at what CEOs took home. Elizabeth Edwards famously said that $1 out every $700 spent in this country for health care went to pay the CEO of UnitedHealth. But here's where I'm flummoxed by this statement by Feinstein. If we have a public option that lowers the costs to consumers, doesn't the "free market" then naturally depress these profit centers in health care by forcing them to be competitive with the public option? Isn't that a good thing, Di?

The stakes are too high for these kind of nonsensical arguments from ridiculously privileged politicos ignoring the will of the people. Please consider donating to our Campaign for Health Care Choice to make your voice heard.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

"President" Newt Gingrich on Da Ali G Show

Oh look, President Newt Gingrich is on the Sunday shows. Again. Gosh, I'm so glad that the media is around to tell us just who embodies the change for which we voted. And looking around, it's no better on any other show: former Bush attorney Ed Gillespie on This Week, former governor Mitt Romney on Fox News and every single milquetoasty DINO booked (I'm looking at you, Feinstein and Specter) is paired with a camera-hogging, sound-byte ready (if fact-negligible) Republican like John Kyl, Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham. Hello: reality-based community to media--it's 2009, not 2000. Catch the hell up already.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Pre-empted for the French Open.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Gloria Borger, Dan Rather, John Heilemann, Katty Kay. Topics: Has President Obama solidified a lasting majority for the Democratic Party? How should Republicans respond to Obama, and who are their promising stars? Meter questions: Will Senate Republicans attack Sonia Sotomayor as a liberal or show deference to her? YES: 10 NO: 2; Is Obama winning the national security policy debate with Cheney? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union/Reliable Sources" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Gillespie; Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the U.S.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - In a speech in Cairo this Thursday, President Obama called for a "new beginning" for relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Fareed brings together a panel of experts from around the Muslim world and the region to react to and analyze the speech...and what it means for U.S./Arab relations. Plus, author Michael Lewis on the economic crisis and the future of Wall Street.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

It's Sunday and you know what that means. Bring on the Bobble Heads. The common theme of the day, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Fox News Sunday: "Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass."

Meet the Press: "Sens. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; Anne Mulcahy, chairwoman and CEO of Xerox Corp.; Jim Owens, chairman and CEO of Caterpillar Inc.; Eric Schmidt, Google Inc. chairman and CEO."

This Week: "Sens. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor."

Face the Nation: "Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz."

State of the Union: "Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Gillespie; Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the U.S."

Leave us your tips and comments in the thread below. We'd be lost without them.

From 60 Minutes April 12, 2009 Sen. Dianne Feinstein on support for the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

"You have lots and lots of Democrats who got support from the NRA this time, and so they agree with the NRA. They'll vote with the NRA," Stahl told Feinstein.

"I'm not going to disagree with that at all," the senator replied.

She admits she's facing daunting opposition. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

Asked if anybody from the Democratic Senate leadership or from the administration has asked her to back off, Feinstein said, "No. Nobody said a word to me."

And what about President Obama, who NRA supporters like to call the great "gun grabber"?

His Web site says he wants to make "the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent," but the White House doesn't seem to be interested in bringing it up - any time soon.

"There's some sense that the president has so many crisis issues on his plate right now that the idea of bringing up guns - which is considered part of the Culture Wars - would be such a diversion," Stahl told Feinstein.

"I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied.

Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.

You can watch the rest of the segment here: Gun Sales: Will The "Loophole" Close? From the article:

Just in the last four weeks, there have been at least eight separate deadly shooting sprees all across the country. Some of this can be linked to the recession since several of the gunmen had lost their jobs.

The recession is having an effect in another surprising way: in past downturns, people stocked up on things like canned soups. But this time, it's guns.

Even as the stock market has plummeted, shares in Smith & Wesson have nearly quadrupled since November, and sales of guns are going through the roof.

February 12, 2009 C-SPAN
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified about current and projected national security threats to the United States. In his testimony he said that global economic turmoil and the instability it could ignite had outpaced terrorism as the most urgent threat facing the United States. He also spoke about the threat posed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as nuclear development programs in North Korea and Iran.
See more CSPANJunkie videos here.

Rachel Maddow talks to Bob Baer about the objections from Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller to the appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Well, if I embrace that philosophy, I can easily accept Leon Panetta as the new head of the CIA. Why? Because Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, who both rolled over on torture, FISA and various other abuses, have a problem with him.

And under the circumstances, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it'll be a good thing to have someone who isn't buddies with the people who perpetuated the horrors of the past eight years. Or maybe it won't, but what the hell, it's worth a shot.

And Salon's Joan Walsh agrees with me:

In other Obama news: I wasn't sure what to make of the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA director -- until I heard that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller opposed it. That's not entirely true: I thought the competent and popular Panetta, who came out strongly against Bush administration torture, detention and interrogation policies, was a clear message that Obama wants to change the way our intelligence agencies do business. The two Democrats' pique -- they say Obama didn't vet Panetta with them -- is a good sign that Panetta's not viewed as an insider who will simply roll over for what the intelligence establishment wants, since Feinstein and Rockefeller did little or nothing to stand up against Bush policies (and Glenn Greenwald agrees with me.)

On MSNBC's "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," I said I trust Obama and Panetta on these issues far more than Feinstein and Rockefeller. Pat Buchanan and David Shuster predicted the opposition of Feinstein and Rockefeller would liberate congressional Republicans to savage Panetta in confirmation hearings; I trust he'll make it through, with Obama's strong backing.

Dianne Feinstein describes Mukasey as a man that is "well-steeped in national security law." If that's true then why doesn't he know if waterboarding is torture? via CNN's Late Edition on Sunday:

Download | play Download | play

Blitzer: When you both announced on Friday you will support the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general, that effectively guaranteed that he'll not only get out of the committee but eventually will be confirmed as the attorney general. Even though he's taking what some are calling a wishy-washy position on waterboarding or torture, why do you believe he should be confirmed?

Feinstein: Well, first of all, because he is a bright, independent figure. Well-steeped in national security law, presided over some of those trials. In the 172 pages of written questions and answers, the independence of thought comes through.

He's not going to wear two hats like Gonzales did. He'll wear one hat, and that will be an independent attorney general for a department which right now, today, is in disarray. Twenty-three out of 93 U.S. attorneys are not filled with permanent confirmed U.S. attorneys. The 10 top positions are vacant.

What I believe this president would do if Mukasey was -- failed to be confirmed was put in an acting, also make recess appointments. That would bring about diminished transparency, diminished Congressional oversight and would not be for the benefit of the department. So this is a strong independent figure. I'd be happy to talk about my views on torture, if you want.

We're only interested in what Mukasey's views on torture are, Dianne. He's the one trying to get confirmed here. And if they don't match up to your view on waterboarding then why did you push his nomination through? Sigh...Then she goes on to quiver at the thought of what George Bush might do if he doesn't get his way. Mr. 24% is making her nervous.

What the heck is wrong with these people? She actually used the term "diminished transparency," and "diminished Congressional oversight" to describe what might happen in the Justice department if Bush had a hissy fit...Isn't that what we've had since Bush and Cheney took office? I could go on, but what would be the point. Please contact her and let her know (It does help) this is not acceptable:

Washington Office:
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Main District Office:
One Post Street, Suite 245
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707

Continue reading »