Did you see this?

[Inuca]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702496.html

The part about JK is pretty bad (especially is it is true). And I am not sure what to make of the article as a whole...

[ProSense]

1. It's not real.

This is an opinion filled with conjecture about who to blame. It's what the detractors would say of any of them. It was written to spotlight Dems infighting (and again shine a bad light on the party).

[ProSense]

2. Question

Why hasn't anyone written one of these all inclusive articles, filled with conjecture, about the Republicans? They are having serious problem on very real issues including Abramoff/lobbying, Patriot Act/spying, etc.

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. I was thinking the same thing

must be the Dems are looking good for the upcoming '06 elections.

[wisteria]

12. Exactly, the media never discusses the republicans in transition.

Nor do they present them in demeaning ways.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. This was an easy way

for Milbank to bash Dems using Dems, but if you read into the article he is mainly using RW talking points.

Just remember as Prosense mentions it is one person's opinion and that person loves bashing Dems.

[Mass]

5. Dont forget, Milbank is the one who wrote this horrible article about

Conyers' s DSM hearings last summer. He also wrote terrible articles about Kerry's proposal to get out of Iraq. I would not listen to anything he says. The man is a tool (just not sure for whom).

[babylonsister]

6. I wish Olbermann would figure that out; he's on way too often

for my taste!

[karendc]

7. My letter to Mr. M:

How about: It's Milbank's fault?

We spoke in the Fall at the Cindy Sheehan rally and I told you about my history of activism. At that moment, you seemed to understand the relationship between Vietnam and Iraq. However, you also made fun of John Conyers' attempts to hold a hearing about the truth of the leadup to the war, and you have continued to flatten the clear messages from the activist communities, to minimize the outrage that exists out here on planet Earth.

The media has, for the past few years, provided the narrative that allows the simple truths to be obfuscated, and the criminals who are destroying democracy to step over their victims and retain the power they have no right to have. While some 25% of us fully understand what has happened, and 38% never will because they are doomed already, having given away their right to privacy, their sons and daughters to war, and their economic security and jobs to China and India, most of us are too busy surviving to have more than a moment of unease as we race around our lives.

YOU have a responsibility here. Rather than simply putting words into the mouths and minds of millions of readers, how about some thoughtful analysis of what is really going on? Democrats, progressives, activists, bloggers--ALL of us out here could use some help painting the picture of what is happening to our democracy. If you are not concerned about it, at least listen to the millions of us who are. We are doing the research and having the discussions with people that you ought to be having, and we are horrified by what we know.

Karen XXXX

[ProSense]

8. Perfect! n/t

[Inuca]

9. GREAT letter n/t

[sandnsea]

11. Eh, Karen, you're too nice

I stick to my response in #10. :)

Seriously, good to know somebody is sticking this crap in their faces, the entire piece was garbage.

:applause:

[karynnj]

14. I think it is Millbank and his peers fault as well

If you take his reasons for Kerry - what you see is Kerry was right when they were wrong. Decomposing his paragraph:
Accusation:
Democrats of most every stripe complain that their party's losing 2004 candidate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, is opportunistically trying to score points with the party's liberal base at the expense of unity.

Likely truth:
Kerry, who is a liberal on many things - esp as Liberal seems to have been expanded to mean disagrees with Lieberman of Bush.

Specific accusation 1:
First, he broke with others in the party and called for an explicit timeline for leaving Iraq; even Democrats who agreed with the policy said it wasn't convincing coming from the 2004 nominee, whose vacillations on Iraq were effectively skewered by Republicans during the campaign.

Truth: Kerry's January 2005 plan was basicallySeptember 2004 Iraq plan that the press covered badly. His July and October plans reflected that windows of opportunity close and events change what is possible. The fact is that only now is the press agreeing with key parts of Kerry's plan as are others - but they don't have the honesty to give Kerry credit. The NYT and WP vacilated in their views not Kerry. He was merely sensible.

Specific allegation 2:
Next, Kerry led a symbol effort to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. The effort split Democrats almost exactly in half and lost by an embarrassing 72 to 25 vote.

Truth: He was standing up for what he believed - and he not the "party leaders" (who I don't think were elected by the people as the 2004 nominee was) was likely right. This could have been a battle won - where we would be on the side of the constitution and individual rights. After it lost, the NYT which ridiculed Kerry, argued that the Democrats could have won. It also would mean the Democrats STOOD FOR SOMETHING.

Accusation 3:
Leaders in both chambers now say Kerry's freelancing is hurting their hopes of unifying the party for 2006.
Truth: Other than an immediate pullout, Kerry's plan - especially as key elements are backed by our generals - could be used as what we stand for. It's better than From/Lieberman/Hillary stick with Bush. Kerry's repeated comments on port secuity should be echoed and Kerry can claim to have shown Dubai as a terrorist financial center a decade ago

- significance of ALL these together is that the public likely has a residual memory of the first two and they are both areas of enormous security importance - and they are Bush failures where Kerry was likely right. The problem is not that KERRY is weakening their chances THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES and their press allies are - because using Kerry's positions on these strengthens Kerry. Reverting to Clinton's credentials doesn't work. They are gambling that the country will reject the Republicans and take any Democrat.

[TayTay]

15. I agree with your assessment Karynnj.

This was in the Bosotn Globe this morning: (I have criticism of this article, after the pull

Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops
See Iraq withdrawal, deployment in region
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | February 20, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/20/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/?page=full

WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

My criticism of this sensible approach to Iraq is that it doesn't mention Sen. KErry and his role in propelling this argument forward. (This is unforgiveable no matter what, but a serious error in the home town paper of Sen. Kerry. Someone is settling scores in DC by giving any name but JK.)

[karynnj]

16. Telling that they could more easily unite

behind a former Reagan official than John Kerry. It is interesting that they assign Reed as the person who was suppose to bring everyone together. He (and Kerry) gave one of the responses to Bush -where Kerry was criticized by Kos for upstaging Reed. It's interesting that Kolb was the one pushed by Dean too. The timing matches what Biden wanted.

I think leaving Kerry (and Feingold) out is not an accident - it looks like they are pushing a far more pro-war adgenda than these two support. I think this plan may be where Reed, Biden, Feinstein and likely Clinton may be. This may in fact, be the DLC plan.

Look at these 2 comments:

"beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries "

AND

"It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline."

These two sentences together are a much longer committment than Kerry or Feingold suggested (It's almost 2 years from now) and , like Murtha, it keeps them in the region instead of bringing them home.

[TayTay]

17. I agree, they are finessing the question

in order to accomodate the Nelsons and Leiberman's of the world who have to take this back to their states and run on it. But it's not really a turn or a stronger stand for the Democrats, it just seems to be. Kerry, Feingold, Boxer and others have issued much harsher critiques on the Bush Admin policies in Iraq, but others are afraid to embrace these bolder visions for fear it will be seen as unpatriotic.

This is so odd, as the numbers indicate that the majority of the American people do not think the War in Iraq was worth it. (I think the disapproval number now stands at 56% and will only get worse as the year goes on.) I wonder what the DLC thinks will motivate voters in '06 to go Democratic. Mere, 'we're not them' will not cut it. (It never does.) Then again, this is why the Democratic Party is in the silent civil war, they have the factions who believe they can finesse the IRaq War and be patriotic and strong and still have a slushy, soft and unfocused support for the anti-war Dem base. Wrong question, wrong answer. This is not a winning formula.

It's really interesting to watch certain Senators who 'get it' right now. Bush is toast. His Administration was revealed as incompetent to the country by Katrina. He has never recovered from that and is unlikely to ever recover no matter what they do. It is far more likely that every little thing they do now will only dig the hole a little deeper. (This Admin is incompetent and corrupt, as my esteemed taller Senator has said repeatedly.) Now is the time to pivot and start to paint those attributes onto the entire Repub Party as a whole. It is time for an all-out attack that will show the American people that there is a difference. This is not a time for timidity. That won't cut it. The Repub Party enables Bush, enables the corruption and incompetence. It enables a war that never ends and has no real goal or purpose beyond semantics and a desire to retain power. The Republican Party doesn't stand for anything, there is nothing at the center of their stands except the 'We're tough on terrorism.' Ahm, after selling our ports and port security to UAE, ahm, I beg to differ. (That must, must, must become an issue. Did we go to war to allow the UAE, a supporter of those who would attack the US, to control our ports and port security? I can't wait to hear something from JK on that. It is, after all, one of his signature issues.)

[karynnj]

18. Like you I really want to hear Kerry's comments on the ports

I think he said that 95% of the containers coming into the ports are not checked so often that everyone in the country would have heard it if we had a media.

Wasn't Dubai a major place where BCCI shareholders were from or do I have the name mixed up. I seriously doubt anyone in this country thinks having the ports controlled by a Dubai based company is a good idea.

[sandnsea]

10. Fuck Dana Milbank

And that's all I have to say about that.

[TayTay]

13. They write this because it's easy to write.

There's no research involved and it merely reinforces a pre-conceived view: The Dems are weak and can't come together to offer a challenge. Milbank is another lazy reporter who is coasting by making stuff up based on the 'truthiness' of what he thinks is going on.

Last I checked, the Dems are having pickups in the local state rep and state Senate races that are going on across the country. This can be a precursor to a good year for them. Milbank is out-of-date and he just doesn't know it. (The WaPo is such a friggin toady paper lately. They have sold their journalistic sould for a a few minutes of access to power. This is beyond sad. Milbank is but a symptom of a greater failure of the media as a whole.)