the blog of DC Drinking Liberally

January 10, 2007

Say No to More Troops in Iraq: Rally Thursday


Tonight Bush will be officially announcing his “surge” plan for Iraq, blatantly ignoring the results of November’s election, in which the American people voted to start winding down our involvement in Iraq, not escalating it. Tomorrow evening DC for Democracy will be holding a rally at the White House, and others participating in Win Without War will be holding similar rallies across the country (MoveOn will also be holding rallies).

Here’s the announcement from Kesh at DC for Democracy:

Let’s deliver an immediate and direct response to the president’s call for escalation: NO! On Thursday, January 11, volunteers from the America Says No coalition will host actions in cities and towns across the country within 24 hours of the president’s speech with a simple message: “America says NO more troops in Iraq!”

DC for Democracy is sponsoring the event in the nation’s capital. We will meet at Lafayette Square, directly opposite the White House from 6 - 7 PM. There will be a reading of the names of Iraq War casualties from the DC area, some brief speeches, and a candlelight vigil. The event will conclude at 7PM. Lafayette Square is a few blocks from the Farragut North metro on the Red Line and Farragut West metro on the Orange Line. Click here for a map. For up to date information on the event, please click here.

We, who live in the DC area have a unique opportunity to speak for the millions nationwide who oppose the troop surge, but are unable to do so right outside the White House. So please give one hour of your time this Thursday and join us in sending a clear and visible NO to the escalation.

Kesh Ladduwahetty
DC for Democracy

October 31, 2006

Denny Hastert, Supergenius


Back in March, I wrote about Glenn Reynolds’ brilliant plan for Iraq. Now Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, in a post on Redstate, has embraced the same “strategy”:

We are criticized for our lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, but our exit strategy has been clear from day one: winning.

Like Reynolds, Hastert gives no indication of what winning would look like or how it could be accomplished — maybe staying the course for another decade or two and wishing really hard that things will improve?

William Kristol joined in on this week’s Fox News Sunday (at about 32:30 in this MP3):

I propose substituting for the three words “stay the course”, how about these three words: “win the war.” Win the war. That’s what Bush should be for. That’s what the Republicans should be for.

And yesterday Bush himself ventured a variation on the theme, with a little extra pre-election nastiness:

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.

That’s what’s at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq.

Fortunately he followed this with “I’m not saying these Democrats are unpatriotic.” Wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea.

October 3, 2006

Iraq for Sale


Iraq for Sale - The War Profiteers

On Thursday, October 12, Join us in the back room of Timberlake’s, 1726 Connecticut Ave NW (Dupont Circle Metro), for this special screening of Robert Greenwald’s latest film, Iraq for Sale.

Cash bar starts at 6:30, and the screening will start at 7:30.

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.

Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

August 27, 2006

Joe Lieberman Asks Us to Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast


Via Atrios, I see that Joe Lieberman has an op-ed in the Hartford Courant this morning. The overall theme of the piece — that Lieberman, the 18-year incumbent, is an agent of change, while Ned Lamont represents the status quo — is ridiculous enough, but the passage about Iraq is delusional:

I believe that the best way for us to win the war in Iraq is to come together — the administration, Congress, and Republicans and Democrats — to find a solution that will allow our troops to come home with Iraq united and free, with the Middle East stable and the terrorists denied a victory [and everyone getting a pony].

Lieberman is asking us, like the White Queen, to believe six impossible things before breakfast:


August 8, 2006

Brace Yourselves, Netroots!


Chris Bowers at MyDD:

[N]o matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive. Both descriptions are inaccurate and unfair because this goes so far beyond the blogosphere, but if I have to choose I would much rather have the second one be the story. If we are going to get trashed and be forced to take credit for the fantastic work of others, I would at least like to get trashed as powerful and relevant.

Things are going to get ugly (or uglier).

When Lamont’s challenge to Lieberman started, I thought at least that by giving Lieberman a scare we could get him to stop being such a Bush enabler. How wrong I was! Via Americablog I see that even now, on the verge of losing the primary, Lieberman is out there trashing Democrats, spreading the Republicans’ message that anyone opposed to the Iraq war is weak on defense and can’t be trusted:

[Lieberman] said a victory for Lamont will send a message to the country: “In the Democratic Party, there’s no room for strong-on-security Dems.” He said that would be disastrous for the Democrats. “You can’t win in this country,” he said, “unless you assure people” that you aren’t going to compromise on national security. He said he has backed the war on terror because he never forgets about the “radical Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again.”

It’s going to be a nail-biting evening.

July 17, 2006

The Big Iraq Candy Mountain


Inspired by BroD’s comment on Brad DeLong’s post on Bush’s latest delusional statement about Iraq being a model democracy — with apologies to Burl Ives, Haywire Mac, hoboes, and anyone else involved with “The Big Rock Candy Mountain”

In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain, it’s a land that’s fair and bright,
No one’s ever heard of IEDs, and the streets are safe at night.
Kidnappers all have rubber knives, and the car bombs don’t go off.
There’s a nice cool breeze, and no disease,
And we finally found those WMDs,
In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain.

Oh, the flowers and sweets from the crowds in the streets
By the Coca-Cola fountain,
The eagles soar, and there’s no civil war,
In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain.

In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain, the terrorists always lose,
And the folks have purple fingers, and they vote for who they choose.
The women wear just what they want, and the men can shave their beards.
The people are free, there’s democracy,
And Sunni, Kurd, and Shi’a are a family
In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain.

In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain, not a single child is hurtin’,
And billions of dollars are all well spent, thanks to friends at Halliburton.
The schools are freshly painted, ’lectricity runs all day.
They get HBO, and there ain’t no snow,
And the people never, ever want our troops to go,
In the Big Iraq Candy Mountain.

June 22, 2006

“The Dark Side”


Tonight at Drinking Liberally we were talking about Wednesday’s Frontline episode on Vice President for Torture Cheney, but most of us hadn’t gotten a chance to see it. Fortunately, PBS has put the entire 90-minute program online, along with pages of supplemental text and charts that could keep you occupied for hours. Here’s the blurb from the site:

After 9/11, Vice President Richard Cheney seized the initiative. He pushed to expand executive power, transform America’s intelligence agencies and bring the war on terror to Iraq. But first he had to take on George Tenet’s CIA for control over intelligence.

The episode is called “The Dark Side”, taken from Cheney’s Vaderian statement shortly after 9/11, “We have to work the dark side, if you will. Spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world.”

I’m just starting to go through it all now. I doubt Dick is happy about this, but then is he ever really happy?

June 9, 2006

“Stunt” Stunt at the Washington Times


Our favorite deranged-megalomaniac-owned newspaper provided a gift for wingnuts everywhere with this story by Amy Fagan yesterday:

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

Predictably, right-wing bloggers seized on the inflammatory language as yet another example of supposedly angry, supposedly unhinged Democrats. The problem is that the Times provides no examples of Democrats actually using the word “stunt”.

Someone must have called them on it, because there’s now a toned-down version of the article online, with the “stunt” references removed (though the original remains online as well):

Some Democrats dismiss air strike

Some Democrats, breaking ranks with their leadership yesterday, said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq wasn’t significant and is being used to divert attention from an unpopular, unsuccessful war that should be ended.

Producing a corrected version allows the Times to pretend to adhere to professional journalistic standards, but at this point the damage has been done, and a new fake story for bashing Democrats has been established.

Turning a Corner


This cartoon by Tom Tomorrow is now 16 months old. I wonder if it will ever become out-of-date. Another commentary might be this doodle:

June 1, 2006

Iraq Safer Than DC? I Don’t Think So!


The latest bit of right-wing innumeracy comes from Rep. Peter King (R-IA), who claims to believe that the civilian death rate is lower in Iraq than in Washington, DC. Of course King’s statistics are now making the rounds of the pro-war blogs as an example of why we should be clapping harder. Since King’s conclusion doesn’t correspond to most people’s views of reality, you might guess his numbers are wrong, and you’d be right. Kieran Healy and his commenters at Crooked Timber weigh King’s analysis and find it wanting. And if King really believes what he’s saying, Healy has a proposition for him:

In the meantime, I have an offer for Rep. King. He should pay my expenses for a vacation to DC, including a flight to the city, a taxi to a local hotel, a few dinners out at restaurants. Maybe some tickets some museums and local sights, perhaps a concert or a game. At the same time, he could take a parallel trip to Baghdad and do the same things — commercial flight in, local taxi, wander out for dinner, etc. We’ll both bring camcorders and see how it works out. If DC is so much more dangerous than Iraq I’m sure something like this would really show up people who say the situation in Iraq is terrible.


DCDL is a blog by Washington, DC-area members of Drinking Liberally. Opinions expressed are the writers’, not those of Drinking Liberally, which provides no funding or other support for this blog.

Upcoming Events

See information on the revived DC chapter (2012).

DCDL Member Blogs

DCDL Speaker Links

DC Links

Liberal (Mostly) Blogs

Liberal Groups

Internal Links



Drinking Liberally

Recent Comments

Recent Posts


Search Blog



later entries • earlier entries

44 queries. 0.464 seconds