Today, there is a hearing in Denver, CO. On Monday, there is a hearing in Chicago, IL. Depending on the Judge, the Justice Department could find itself in major legal trouble. While I can't discuss everything about the case, I'll give you the basic story.
Here's the background. The Justice Department has been investigating someone for corporate reimbursement. This is one of around a hundred cases being pursued by the Justice Department, citing a Federal law that allows them to criminally prosecute campaign finance violations.
That's where the scandal starts. The law that DOJ has been citing is outdated. A newer law requires a referral from the Federal Election Commission in order for the DOJ to pursue it criminally. The reason for this is that over 99% of campaign finance violations are settled by the FEC by fines. Only the most egregious ever are prosecuted criminally. Think about it. When is the last time you heard of criminal charges for campaign finance reasons?
Today, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington just today announced that they are filing a complained against Senator Mel Martinez for violations in his 2004 campaign. He also serves as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. See their release here to see how far reaching his violations were. So far, there is no criminal prosecution of him. Hmmmm.....I wonder why.
I don't know how many of those hundred cases being pursued by DOJ are against Democrats. Nobody does because they won't tell us. There is probably a reason for that.
So, because they have been using an outdated law to investigate and prosecute, the Attorney General is being sued in Federal Court in several jurisdictions. The first hearings are the ones in Denver and Chicago. This could lead to the dismissal of all pending investigations.
However, it could be a watershed moment for another reason. Because of the recent oversight given to the Executive Branch, we now know that the Justice Department has circumvented the legal process and issued tens of thousands of "national security letters." These documents allow DOJ/FBI to forgo getting a Judge's approval for a subpoena. In other words, it allows bureaucrats to violate the Constitutional rights with no Judicial oversight. It is also done in secret.
But, there are indications that national security letters were issued in these campaign finance investigations. It is possible that this Justice Department abused the law to go on a crusade to investigate Democratic donors. So far, the Government has been unwilling to provide an answer to the question of whether or not this is true. If we're lucky, a Federal Judge in Denver or Chicago will seek the truth and uphold the spirit of the law and our Constitution.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
New Iraq Spending Plan: Details and Opinion
Since Congressional Republicans continued to stick with "thirty-something W" and voted to uphold his veto of money for our troops and accountability for his handling of the Iraq war, we've waited with baited breath to see how Democrats would respond. Now we know.
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has drafted two separate emergency supplemental appropriations bills. The first deals with Military funding, Katrina recovery, Children's Health Insurance Program, Veterans Health care, and a few other things. The second bill deals with Agriculture assistance and Western States appropriations.
It would have been nice to send him a bill ONLY with military spending, so he can't find some ridiculous reason to veto it again. But, I'm going to concentrate just on the Military piece, since that's what this is really all about.
The total military spending contained in the new Iraq Accountability Act totals about $96 billion. Some of this is only available through September of this year, just under $56 billion to be exact. The rest is available to be spent through either September 2008 or 2009. Most of this funding is for things like procurement of armored vehicles and new airplanes or special programs like eradicating land mines. This adds up to almost $40 billion, which is NOT subject to any timetable.
To get some of this money, the President will have to prepare a report to Congress and have it approved. Here is the language detailing what Congress is expecting:
Should the President fail to conform with this requirement and his report be approved by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, then approximately $50 billion in spending will not be approved. Some of that $50 billion is meant to be spent by September of this year.
Aside from the money issues, there are provisions that require that all troops be deemed combat ready according to DOD regulations before being deployed. The bill also prevents the deployment of troops to be extended beyond one year. Further, it requires that troops be home for a minimum of 210 days before being deployed for an additional tour of duty.
Unfortunately, it allows the President to waive any of these provisions of the law with a notification to Congress that it is because of national security needs. This ability to waive that requirement takes a lot of the teeth out of what this could have been. It is, however, consistent with the first bill passed by the Congress.
So, what should we make of all this? I'll have to say, at first glance, I was pretty mad that there was no timeline for withdrawal in this bill. But, after really taking a look at it and seeing how the funding mechanisms are built in, it looks like a decent compromise. Many Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, taking a cue from General Petreus, have established September as an informal deadline for knowing if any progress will be made under this new leadership and the President's so-called "new" strategy.
Our ultimate goal should be to end the war as soon as possible. While I have advocated not caving to the President on a single point, I think this is something we should support.
First, it requires the President to go on the record on many issues which are pertinent to the stewardship of the war in Iraq. It also requires DOD to provide the Congress with a complete report on Contractor activity in Iraq. This is something that has not been required previously. With this, we can learn how much money is going to the troops and how much is lining the pockets of Corporate America. Most importantly, it funds the war until September, at which time, we will likely have much more support for putting an end to this atrocity.
As impatient as I am, I can live with this. I can only hope that moderate Republicans come to their senses and get behind this. There is a better chance of this happening than the arrogance in the White House being won over by sound reason and compromise. I urge everyone to put pressure on these Republicans to team up with Democrats to make this legislation a reality.
*****UPDATE*****
Speaker Pelosi has talking points on the legislation on her website here. It includes something that I failed to see when I went over the legislation which strengthens my support for the bill. Here it is:
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has drafted two separate emergency supplemental appropriations bills. The first deals with Military funding, Katrina recovery, Children's Health Insurance Program, Veterans Health care, and a few other things. The second bill deals with Agriculture assistance and Western States appropriations.
It would have been nice to send him a bill ONLY with military spending, so he can't find some ridiculous reason to veto it again. But, I'm going to concentrate just on the Military piece, since that's what this is really all about.
The total military spending contained in the new Iraq Accountability Act totals about $96 billion. Some of this is only available through September of this year, just under $56 billion to be exact. The rest is available to be spent through either September 2008 or 2009. Most of this funding is for things like procurement of armored vehicles and new airplanes or special programs like eradicating land mines. This adds up to almost $40 billion, which is NOT subject to any timetable.
To get some of this money, the President will have to prepare a report to Congress and have it approved. Here is the language detailing what Congress is expecting:
SEC. 1330. The President shall transmit to the Congress a report in classified and unclassified form, on or before July 13, 2007, detailing—
(1) the progress the Government of Iraq has made in—
(A) giving the United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias;
(B) delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference;
(C) intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis;
(D) ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces;
(E) eliminating militia control of local security;
(F) establishing a strong militia disarmament program;
(G) ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws;
(H) establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;
(I) eradicating safe havens;
(J) reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and
(K) ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected; and
(2) whether the Government of Iraq has—
(A) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
(B) adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections;
(C) reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws;
(D) amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such Constitution; and
(E) allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
Should the President fail to conform with this requirement and his report be approved by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, then approximately $50 billion in spending will not be approved. Some of that $50 billion is meant to be spent by September of this year.
Aside from the money issues, there are provisions that require that all troops be deemed combat ready according to DOD regulations before being deployed. The bill also prevents the deployment of troops to be extended beyond one year. Further, it requires that troops be home for a minimum of 210 days before being deployed for an additional tour of duty.
Unfortunately, it allows the President to waive any of these provisions of the law with a notification to Congress that it is because of national security needs. This ability to waive that requirement takes a lot of the teeth out of what this could have been. It is, however, consistent with the first bill passed by the Congress.
So, what should we make of all this? I'll have to say, at first glance, I was pretty mad that there was no timeline for withdrawal in this bill. But, after really taking a look at it and seeing how the funding mechanisms are built in, it looks like a decent compromise. Many Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, taking a cue from General Petreus, have established September as an informal deadline for knowing if any progress will be made under this new leadership and the President's so-called "new" strategy.
Our ultimate goal should be to end the war as soon as possible. While I have advocated not caving to the President on a single point, I think this is something we should support.
First, it requires the President to go on the record on many issues which are pertinent to the stewardship of the war in Iraq. It also requires DOD to provide the Congress with a complete report on Contractor activity in Iraq. This is something that has not been required previously. With this, we can learn how much money is going to the troops and how much is lining the pockets of Corporate America. Most importantly, it funds the war until September, at which time, we will likely have much more support for putting an end to this atrocity.
As impatient as I am, I can live with this. I can only hope that moderate Republicans come to their senses and get behind this. There is a better chance of this happening than the arrogance in the White House being won over by sound reason and compromise. I urge everyone to put pressure on these Republicans to team up with Democrats to make this legislation a reality.
*****UPDATE*****
Speaker Pelosi has talking points on the legislation on her website here. It includes something that I failed to see when I went over the legislation which strengthens my support for the bill. Here it is:
Those procedures would also guarantee a vote in the House on an amendment to provide that defense funding related to Iraq could only be used to plan and execute the redeployment of troops within 180 days of enactment. The only exceptions to this troop redeployment would be for troops protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; or training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Democrats Poised to Abandon Troops AND American People?
Today's Washington Post contains the headline, "April Toll is Highest of '07 for U.S. Troops". More than 100 Americans have been killed in the past month. This brings the death toll, the ultimate cost for this "War of Failed Leadership" closer to the 3500 mark then ever before.
Meanwhile, the headline in the Washington Times today reads, "Democrats conceding on war bill". Here's an excerpt:
Here is a recent Washington Post article that tells us, according to a Post/ABC News poll, that Americans overwhelmingly trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing on Iraq, edging out Bush by 25%. That's a HUGE margin. Democrats have the support of the American people on this issue.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WE CEDE THIS ISSUE TO GEORGE BUSH. It would be an abidcation of the trust placed in the Democratic Congress by voters nationwide in November 2006. It would also be an abandonment of the responsibility we have to our troops.
Here is an excerpt of an email from a friend in South Carolina whose son is in Iraq. He is organizing a grassroots effort to show that the American people care about our troops since there apparently aren't enough people in Washington that are willing to use the power of Congress to show them that they care.
Democrats in Congress need to coalesce around a shared goal of truly changing course in Iraq. You have the support and confidence of the American people. George Bush does not. If you show solidarity on this issue, you will win in the court of public opinion.
Send him the SAME BILL again. Repeat over and over that you are funding the troops and bringing them home. That's the mandate you were given in November. It's what the People want. It's what the Troops want. Do not succumb to a President whose approval rating has been stuck in the low 30's for as long as we can remember.
STAND UP. DO NOT BACK DOWN. MAKE US PROUD.
Meanwhile, the headline in the Washington Times today reads, "Democrats conceding on war bill". Here's an excerpt:
Democratic leaders in Congress are slowly backing down from a standoff with the White House over tying war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable, saying they can use other bills to confront President Bush on Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is courting Republican support for compromise war-funding legislation to follow Mr. Bush's promised veto this week of a $124 billion bill that would start a pullout as soon as July.
Senior Democratic aides say that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not similarly talking to Republicans about a post-veto agreement, she privately acknowledges that eventually the "money will get to the troops without timetables."
Here is a recent Washington Post article that tells us, according to a Post/ABC News poll, that Americans overwhelmingly trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing on Iraq, edging out Bush by 25%. That's a HUGE margin. Democrats have the support of the American people on this issue.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WE CEDE THIS ISSUE TO GEORGE BUSH. It would be an abidcation of the trust placed in the Democratic Congress by voters nationwide in November 2006. It would also be an abandonment of the responsibility we have to our troops.
Here is an excerpt of an email from a friend in South Carolina whose son is in Iraq. He is organizing a grassroots effort to show that the American people care about our troops since there apparently aren't enough people in Washington that are willing to use the power of Congress to show them that they care.
"I just received word from my son Joshua that his unit's tour of duty in Iraq is being extended to November--they were originally scheduled to come home in July. Needless to say, the soldiers are depressed and upset at this news. I am sincerely asking that everyone who can help do at least one shoebox, and get their family members and friends to do one also. In December we sent 45, lets break 100 this time. Besides getting the news of their extension, 4 men in his unit were killed in action the week before Easter. Let's send love and support from the lowcountry."
Democrats in Congress need to coalesce around a shared goal of truly changing course in Iraq. You have the support and confidence of the American people. George Bush does not. If you show solidarity on this issue, you will win in the court of public opinion.
Send him the SAME BILL again. Repeat over and over that you are funding the troops and bringing them home. That's the mandate you were given in November. It's what the People want. It's what the Troops want. Do not succumb to a President whose approval rating has been stuck in the low 30's for as long as we can remember.
STAND UP. DO NOT BACK DOWN. MAKE US PROUD.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
SC Dem Presidential Debate: Pre-Debate Analysis
I wrote a piece for Huffington Post this morning and just forgot to repost it here. So, I'll put it below. I'm also going to be doing a post-debate analysis as well for Huffington. I'll be sure to put here for you as well.
I hope you catch the debate. Let me know what you think!
Lane
Tonight's Presidential Debate: A Lot on the Line
Huffington Post
Tonight's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina provides the first nationwide platform for the Democratic candidates to sell their candidacies to voters. In addition to being broadcast by MSNBC, it will be carried by all local NBC affiliates in South Carolina, one of the four early Primary or Caucus States. Candidates will need to appeal not only to Democrats nationally, but will also need to pay special attention to the still maturing ground of South Carolina Presidential Primary voters.
The Palmetto State was chosen for an early Primary position largely because of a significant presence of African American voters, which was previously lacking in the early contests. South Carolina's Primary is the best opportunity for this largely Democratic constituency to influence the nomination contest between the most diverse field of candidates ever fielded by the Democratic Party. African American voters are expected to comprise 50-55% of the Primary voters and could very well choose the winner.
When the Debate kicks off at 7pm on the campus of South Carolina State University, a Historically Black College, there will be a lot on the line. The first thing that each campaign will strive to do is to prevent a major gaffe. At such an early stage, it could be a deadly blow to any of the campaigns, particularly those of the lower tier.
John Edwards won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 2004. Then, it was largely written off by the other candidates, so it is an unknown factor how he will play there in 2008. As a native South Carolinian and former Senator from North Carolina, he does have somewhat of a home court advantage. During the debate, the populist themes that he has been pitching to audiences across the nation should be well received by both his South Carolina audience and national Democrats. His work on poverty is a defining issue of his campaign and one that many Democrats will feel is returning to the mission of their Party. He is also a leading voice among the contenders in opposing the Iraq War, which he should emphasize as soon as possible so he can capture the anti-war Primary voters who will only support a viable candidate. His biggest challenge will be to convince those same voters that he is indeed a viable candidate. With Clinton and Obama receiving the lion's share of the media coverage, he will need to muster all of his abilities to speak to the average person and inspire them to believe in his campaign.
Hillary Clinton is as well known in South Carolina as she is anywhere else. That carries the same benefits and challenges as it does nationwide. People trust her experience and judgment. She is a rock star and draws large crowds. In spite of all that, she doesn't seem to connect on an individual level with voters in the same manner as some of the other candidates. After more than six years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Democratic voters will be looking for someone who inspires them to believe there is something better. While they remember fondly the days of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990's, it does not translate into an immediate belief that she carries the same magic of her husband. Hillary will undoubtedly remain firmly on her well vetted message and deliver her points with poise and confidence. Her biggest challenge will be to add some "warm fuzzy factor" to how voters perceive her and to convince them that she hasn't been living in a bubble since 1992. If she can win in the South Carolina Primary, it could very well cement her race for the nomination. In a State where John Edwards and Barack Obama would presumably have major advantages, this could be where Hillary puts them away.
Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate in the Presidential campaign, yet has attracted a large and diverse national following. His transformational style of speaking has inspired many people and fueled a stronger than expected fundraising operation. He speaks eloquently and is well polished. Given the large African American population in South Carolina, he may come into the State's Primary with the best advantage of all of the candidates. However, he cannot count on that support to gravitate to him simply because of his historic candidacy. African American voters are complex people and have a long history of being disappointed. Obama will have to work to earn their respect and support. The average African American voter in South Carolina will not share his experience of being a Harvard graduate and successful big city lawyer. He will have to tell a compelling personal story to make this an asset rather than a quality that separates him from voters who do not share his recent experiences. Given his lack of experience under such scrutiny, I believe he is at greater risk of making a mistake than Edwards or Clinton. Part of his challenge will be to maintain his transformational style of speaking while fielding a wide range of questions during the debate. Should he be able to walk the fine line between the two and not lose his golden touch, he could come out as the winner.
Bill Richardson is arguably the most experienced candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential race. Yet, he is largely unknown to a national audience as well as South Carolina voters. Richardson will need to sell his wide-ranging experience in elected and appointed office and make it relevant to the average voter. To do this, he will need to speak with authority on a wide range of issues and stake out positions that set him apart from the other candidates. This will help him overcome his biggest challenge in this debate: to make the jump to a top-tier candidate. He's got the ability to do that, but it remains to be seen if he will.
The other candidates participating in the debate all share the same goals. They all need to increase name identification and distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower-tier candidates. This will be a difficult challenge, given the number of candidates and the amount of attention that will be given to the top-tier competition.
There always remains the chance that somebody will score a major one-liner that will earn a massive amount of free media. Those are the moments that propel an unknown into a competitive race or cement front-runner status. Those moments are also what keep the attention of millions focused on every step of a Presidential race. We may witness a landscape changing moment tonight that will go down in history. Maybe not. Either way, it proves to be an exciting night for the Democratic Presidential Campaign and an opportunity to see the candidates at their best.
I hope you catch the debate. Let me know what you think!
Lane
Tonight's Presidential Debate: A Lot on the Line
Huffington Post
Tonight's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina provides the first nationwide platform for the Democratic candidates to sell their candidacies to voters. In addition to being broadcast by MSNBC, it will be carried by all local NBC affiliates in South Carolina, one of the four early Primary or Caucus States. Candidates will need to appeal not only to Democrats nationally, but will also need to pay special attention to the still maturing ground of South Carolina Presidential Primary voters.
The Palmetto State was chosen for an early Primary position largely because of a significant presence of African American voters, which was previously lacking in the early contests. South Carolina's Primary is the best opportunity for this largely Democratic constituency to influence the nomination contest between the most diverse field of candidates ever fielded by the Democratic Party. African American voters are expected to comprise 50-55% of the Primary voters and could very well choose the winner.
When the Debate kicks off at 7pm on the campus of South Carolina State University, a Historically Black College, there will be a lot on the line. The first thing that each campaign will strive to do is to prevent a major gaffe. At such an early stage, it could be a deadly blow to any of the campaigns, particularly those of the lower tier.
John Edwards won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 2004. Then, it was largely written off by the other candidates, so it is an unknown factor how he will play there in 2008. As a native South Carolinian and former Senator from North Carolina, he does have somewhat of a home court advantage. During the debate, the populist themes that he has been pitching to audiences across the nation should be well received by both his South Carolina audience and national Democrats. His work on poverty is a defining issue of his campaign and one that many Democrats will feel is returning to the mission of their Party. He is also a leading voice among the contenders in opposing the Iraq War, which he should emphasize as soon as possible so he can capture the anti-war Primary voters who will only support a viable candidate. His biggest challenge will be to convince those same voters that he is indeed a viable candidate. With Clinton and Obama receiving the lion's share of the media coverage, he will need to muster all of his abilities to speak to the average person and inspire them to believe in his campaign.
Hillary Clinton is as well known in South Carolina as she is anywhere else. That carries the same benefits and challenges as it does nationwide. People trust her experience and judgment. She is a rock star and draws large crowds. In spite of all that, she doesn't seem to connect on an individual level with voters in the same manner as some of the other candidates. After more than six years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Democratic voters will be looking for someone who inspires them to believe there is something better. While they remember fondly the days of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990's, it does not translate into an immediate belief that she carries the same magic of her husband. Hillary will undoubtedly remain firmly on her well vetted message and deliver her points with poise and confidence. Her biggest challenge will be to add some "warm fuzzy factor" to how voters perceive her and to convince them that she hasn't been living in a bubble since 1992. If she can win in the South Carolina Primary, it could very well cement her race for the nomination. In a State where John Edwards and Barack Obama would presumably have major advantages, this could be where Hillary puts them away.
Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate in the Presidential campaign, yet has attracted a large and diverse national following. His transformational style of speaking has inspired many people and fueled a stronger than expected fundraising operation. He speaks eloquently and is well polished. Given the large African American population in South Carolina, he may come into the State's Primary with the best advantage of all of the candidates. However, he cannot count on that support to gravitate to him simply because of his historic candidacy. African American voters are complex people and have a long history of being disappointed. Obama will have to work to earn their respect and support. The average African American voter in South Carolina will not share his experience of being a Harvard graduate and successful big city lawyer. He will have to tell a compelling personal story to make this an asset rather than a quality that separates him from voters who do not share his recent experiences. Given his lack of experience under such scrutiny, I believe he is at greater risk of making a mistake than Edwards or Clinton. Part of his challenge will be to maintain his transformational style of speaking while fielding a wide range of questions during the debate. Should he be able to walk the fine line between the two and not lose his golden touch, he could come out as the winner.
Bill Richardson is arguably the most experienced candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential race. Yet, he is largely unknown to a national audience as well as South Carolina voters. Richardson will need to sell his wide-ranging experience in elected and appointed office and make it relevant to the average voter. To do this, he will need to speak with authority on a wide range of issues and stake out positions that set him apart from the other candidates. This will help him overcome his biggest challenge in this debate: to make the jump to a top-tier candidate. He's got the ability to do that, but it remains to be seen if he will.
The other candidates participating in the debate all share the same goals. They all need to increase name identification and distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower-tier candidates. This will be a difficult challenge, given the number of candidates and the amount of attention that will be given to the top-tier competition.
There always remains the chance that somebody will score a major one-liner that will earn a massive amount of free media. Those are the moments that propel an unknown into a competitive race or cement front-runner status. Those moments are also what keep the attention of millions focused on every step of a Presidential race. We may witness a landscape changing moment tonight that will go down in history. Maybe not. Either way, it proves to be an exciting night for the Democratic Presidential Campaign and an opportunity to see the candidates at their best.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Iraqis Still in a 'Disastrous' Situation
This was the headline for a very small article in the Washington Post Express at the end of last week. For those of you outside of DC, the Express is an abbreviated newspaper that the Washington Post provides for free to people riding the subway.
Since the article was so small, I'll post it all here for you:
This is the coverage that this report received. Pathetic. The International Red Cross is perhaps the most unbiased source of information on what the situation is like on the ground there.
Despite John McCain's bogus claim that the market in Baghdad was so nice that his delegation "could just walk around" and Lindsey Graham's exciting purchase of "two rugs for five bucks", things are not going well there. (Did you see the dozens of military body guards surrounding his delegation?) McCain further said that the full story isn't being told about Iraq. When I first heard him say that, I thought it was the first step in him adjusting his position and to begin assuming a reasonable posture on the issue. Not so much.
I would venture to say that the average Iraqi was better off under the reign of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps that is controversial because of how he has been villainized in American culture. By the way, that is a characterization which is not commonplace worldwide. Hussein was no angel, but he was able to rule a nation which is divided by major cultural and religious differences without a civil war.
Speaker Pelosi is meeting with President Bush today to discuss the Iraq Accountability Act. The Washington Post released a poll today that says 58% of Americans trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing in Iraq and only 33% trust President Bush to do the right thing. Accordingly, Pelosi should stand firm on her position. To do otherwise would betray the trust of the American public.
Further, Democratic solidarity is incredibly important. This poll shows that more than two full weeks of offense by the White House has not moved public opinion. We still have the advantage. Stand together and do the right thing.
There are reasonable Republicans who want to support benchmarks and a time line. A united Democratic front will give them more of a reason to break ranks with the 'Blank Check' policy the White House wants to continue with. Irresponsible comments by Leading Democrats make it harder for these Republicans to join us by giving the Administration a reason to continue pressuring these lawmakers.
Let's keep hammering away on this issue. We're losing Americans everyday in a war that was based on false pretenses.
Since the article was so small, I'll post it all here for you:
Millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that is getting worse, with mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them, the International
Red Cross said Wednesday.
"The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population," the agency said in a report. "Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded."
"The humanitarian situation is steadily worsening," said the report, which went beyond the neutral agency's usual appeals for all sides to protect civilians, as required by the Geneva Conventions.
This is the coverage that this report received. Pathetic. The International Red Cross is perhaps the most unbiased source of information on what the situation is like on the ground there.
Despite John McCain's bogus claim that the market in Baghdad was so nice that his delegation "could just walk around" and Lindsey Graham's exciting purchase of "two rugs for five bucks", things are not going well there. (Did you see the dozens of military body guards surrounding his delegation?) McCain further said that the full story isn't being told about Iraq. When I first heard him say that, I thought it was the first step in him adjusting his position and to begin assuming a reasonable posture on the issue. Not so much.
I would venture to say that the average Iraqi was better off under the reign of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps that is controversial because of how he has been villainized in American culture. By the way, that is a characterization which is not commonplace worldwide. Hussein was no angel, but he was able to rule a nation which is divided by major cultural and religious differences without a civil war.
Speaker Pelosi is meeting with President Bush today to discuss the Iraq Accountability Act. The Washington Post released a poll today that says 58% of Americans trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing in Iraq and only 33% trust President Bush to do the right thing. Accordingly, Pelosi should stand firm on her position. To do otherwise would betray the trust of the American public.
Further, Democratic solidarity is incredibly important. This poll shows that more than two full weeks of offense by the White House has not moved public opinion. We still have the advantage. Stand together and do the right thing.
There are reasonable Republicans who want to support benchmarks and a time line. A united Democratic front will give them more of a reason to break ranks with the 'Blank Check' policy the White House wants to continue with. Irresponsible comments by Leading Democrats make it harder for these Republicans to join us by giving the Administration a reason to continue pressuring these lawmakers.
Let's keep hammering away on this issue. We're losing Americans everyday in a war that was based on false pretenses.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Gays and Lesbians Deserve the Right to Work
For too long, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act has sat around Capitol Hill getting dusty. It looks like it may actually have a chance at passing. That is, if the Democratic Leadership will stand up for what is right. And if Republicans will stop playing politics with basic rights.
The idea that someone can be fired simply because of their sexual orientation is appalling. Yet, Congress is slow to prohibit such blatant discrimination. Why?
Democrats in Congress need to grow a spine. Just because the word "gay" is involved doesn't give you a license to whine about the voters in your District. If you can't sell the idea that all Americans deserve a fair shot at making a living, then you don't belong in Congress.
Republicans in Congress need to view this issue through the lens of conservatism rather than petty politics. The fundamental right to earn a living seems like a good, solid conservative idea. After all, conservatives inherently oppose "freebies" such as unemployment compensation, right? So, it would logically follow that EVERYONE have full access to the job market. Right? (no pun intended)
Gay rights groups need to stop walking soft around the halls of Congress while lobbying for ENDA. The Human Rights Campaign is dedicating much effort to this, but I'd like to see a tougher approach. It is not acceptable to give a wink and a nod to anybody on this issue or to allow people to group this with more complicated issues of the gay rights movement. The time has come to tell Congress to get the work done.
So, to the Democratic and Republican Leadership, roll up your sleeves and get it done. It's your responsibility to protect the basic rights of the American people. All of us.
The idea that someone can be fired simply because of their sexual orientation is appalling. Yet, Congress is slow to prohibit such blatant discrimination. Why?
Democrats in Congress need to grow a spine. Just because the word "gay" is involved doesn't give you a license to whine about the voters in your District. If you can't sell the idea that all Americans deserve a fair shot at making a living, then you don't belong in Congress.
Republicans in Congress need to view this issue through the lens of conservatism rather than petty politics. The fundamental right to earn a living seems like a good, solid conservative idea. After all, conservatives inherently oppose "freebies" such as unemployment compensation, right? So, it would logically follow that EVERYONE have full access to the job market. Right? (no pun intended)
Gay rights groups need to stop walking soft around the halls of Congress while lobbying for ENDA. The Human Rights Campaign is dedicating much effort to this, but I'd like to see a tougher approach. It is not acceptable to give a wink and a nod to anybody on this issue or to allow people to group this with more complicated issues of the gay rights movement. The time has come to tell Congress to get the work done.
So, to the Democratic and Republican Leadership, roll up your sleeves and get it done. It's your responsibility to protect the basic rights of the American people. All of us.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Getting Out: The next step
Congressional Democrats did a fantastic job passing the Iraq Accountability Act, which funded our presence in Iraq at the levels requested by the Administration and also contained a timetable for withdrawal of our troops. They deserve a big pat on the back for the work to make this happen, as it is one of the most substantial pieces of legislation passed in YEARS. After four years of war in Iraq, there is a glimmer of hope that it will end.
Of course, the monkey in the White House has promised a veto. I earlier posted that we should turn the argument on troop funding right back at him: "If George Bush vetoes this bill, he will unilaterally be cutting off funding for the troops."
Now, I'm hearing chatter about "post veto strategy." It sounds like many Democrats have already given up on forcing the funding being tied to benchmarks for progress and the time table for withdrawing troops. Giving up already is WRONG.
We need to unite as Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, and Centrists on this issue. The American people overwhelmingly support the Iraq Accountability Act and the policies contained in it. Accordingly, we should not simply allow a President, who does not have the support of the people, to dictate this issue.
I would suggest that we spend time pressuring the President to sign the legislation that will reach his desk in a month or so. But, we all know he is too arrogant to realize how wrong he is. So, let's stick to the message I suggested above. This gives us the benefit of applying pressure on the President without massive grassroots mobilization. It also has the side-effect of pressuring the Republicans in Congress who might waver on the issue.
There is credible evidence that many House and Senate Republicans are "closeted" supporters of the Iraq Accountability Act. We need to find them and ride them long and hard. I remember when I was a young staffer in the Senate. The right wing mobilized people to engage in a massive phone campaign targeting Democrats who were planning to vote to sustain President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It was relentless. By the end of it, I was ready to scream at my boss to vote to override the veto. Of course, they engaged language like "baby killer" over and over again. Perhaps we could remind them about young American men and women dying every day in Iraq.
That phone campaign gave the impression that an overwhelming number of people supported overriding Clinton's veto. When, in actuality it wasn't. Imagine what we could do with this! We've got a large majority of Americans who want this legislation. Perhaps if we can harness this support in a direct lobbying effort of vulnerable Republicans, we can get close to the number of supporters to override the veto.
There will be many efforts at ensuring that we have a firm time line for withdrawal. MoveOn.org has been a real leader in this, so be sure to watch for their leadership.
In the meantime, DO NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT.
Since it's a big job to gain another fifteen votes in the Senate and many more vote in the House, just for a moment, I'll suggest what the Democrats in Congress should do if they can't override the President's expected veto: PASS IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL GEORGE BUSH REALIZES HE IS A BUMBLING IDIOT. (that should take enough time until we can replace him)
Of course, the monkey in the White House has promised a veto. I earlier posted that we should turn the argument on troop funding right back at him: "If George Bush vetoes this bill, he will unilaterally be cutting off funding for the troops."
Now, I'm hearing chatter about "post veto strategy." It sounds like many Democrats have already given up on forcing the funding being tied to benchmarks for progress and the time table for withdrawing troops. Giving up already is WRONG.
We need to unite as Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, and Centrists on this issue. The American people overwhelmingly support the Iraq Accountability Act and the policies contained in it. Accordingly, we should not simply allow a President, who does not have the support of the people, to dictate this issue.
I would suggest that we spend time pressuring the President to sign the legislation that will reach his desk in a month or so. But, we all know he is too arrogant to realize how wrong he is. So, let's stick to the message I suggested above. This gives us the benefit of applying pressure on the President without massive grassroots mobilization. It also has the side-effect of pressuring the Republicans in Congress who might waver on the issue.
There is credible evidence that many House and Senate Republicans are "closeted" supporters of the Iraq Accountability Act. We need to find them and ride them long and hard. I remember when I was a young staffer in the Senate. The right wing mobilized people to engage in a massive phone campaign targeting Democrats who were planning to vote to sustain President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It was relentless. By the end of it, I was ready to scream at my boss to vote to override the veto. Of course, they engaged language like "baby killer" over and over again. Perhaps we could remind them about young American men and women dying every day in Iraq.
That phone campaign gave the impression that an overwhelming number of people supported overriding Clinton's veto. When, in actuality it wasn't. Imagine what we could do with this! We've got a large majority of Americans who want this legislation. Perhaps if we can harness this support in a direct lobbying effort of vulnerable Republicans, we can get close to the number of supporters to override the veto.
There will be many efforts at ensuring that we have a firm time line for withdrawal. MoveOn.org has been a real leader in this, so be sure to watch for their leadership.
In the meantime, DO NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT.
Since it's a big job to gain another fifteen votes in the Senate and many more vote in the House, just for a moment, I'll suggest what the Democrats in Congress should do if they can't override the President's expected veto: PASS IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL GEORGE BUSH REALIZES HE IS A BUMBLING IDIOT. (that should take enough time until we can replace him)
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Latest misleading headline in the Washington Times
In today's Washington Times (aka the "Moonie Times"), there is a headline that reads "Iraq war funding in limbo on Hill". You can see it here. This is yet another instance of the conservative rag furthering a message meant to mislead the American people.
Let me be clear. The Democratic Congress has passed legislation funding the troops. There is nothing in limbo on the Hill.
The decision on funding the troops now rests with President Bush. If he vetoes the Iraq Accountability Act, he will have unilaterally cut off funding for the troops. Period.
Let me be clear. The Democratic Congress has passed legislation funding the troops. There is nothing in limbo on the Hill.
The decision on funding the troops now rests with President Bush. If he vetoes the Iraq Accountability Act, he will have unilaterally cut off funding for the troops. Period.
A Bush Veto Avoids Accountability and Harms Troops
Both Houses of Congress have passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that contains benchmarks and goals for progress in Iraq as well as a timetable for redeployment of American troops in Iraq. This is about accountability that has so far been lacking in the Bush administration's execution of the Iraq War.
George Bush's threat to veto this accountability is embarrassing. It sends a message to the world that his policy is to sustain a failed war policy that is further increasing instability in the region. It also signals to the nascent Iraqi government that we will prop them up, regardless of their unwillingness to assume responsibility for their own country.
It should further be said that the benchmarks and goals contained in the bill were originally suggested by Bush's own Department of Defense. Democratic Leadership simply placed those suggestions into law.
To veto the supplemental would serve only to avoid this accountability. For the past six years, George Bush has not had a Congress that was willing to hold him accountable for anything. Thankfully, the Democratic Congress has lived up to its responsibility to do what the Republican-led Congress wouldn't.
If Bush vetoes this bill, it will deny much needed funding to the troops. The military would not be able to afford to deploy new troops, effectively extending the already-extended tours of the men and women currently in Iraq. He should be mindful of this before acting grossly irresponsible and using his veto power.
Those of us on the Left should repeat this argument as often as possible. To repeat in much simpler terms, a veto avoids accountability and harms our troops.
Here is a video of Speaker Pelosi's comments on the bill, the Iraq Accountability Act. For good measure, I'm also going to include what I think are two more amazing speeches. The second one is Representative Jack Murtha, who is a veteran and largely responsible for moving us so far in the right direction on Iraq policy. The third is Freshman Representative Patrick Murphy. Patrick is a fantastic guy and continues to make me proud with the way he is conducting himself in office.
George Bush's threat to veto this accountability is embarrassing. It sends a message to the world that his policy is to sustain a failed war policy that is further increasing instability in the region. It also signals to the nascent Iraqi government that we will prop them up, regardless of their unwillingness to assume responsibility for their own country.
It should further be said that the benchmarks and goals contained in the bill were originally suggested by Bush's own Department of Defense. Democratic Leadership simply placed those suggestions into law.
To veto the supplemental would serve only to avoid this accountability. For the past six years, George Bush has not had a Congress that was willing to hold him accountable for anything. Thankfully, the Democratic Congress has lived up to its responsibility to do what the Republican-led Congress wouldn't.
If Bush vetoes this bill, it will deny much needed funding to the troops. The military would not be able to afford to deploy new troops, effectively extending the already-extended tours of the men and women currently in Iraq. He should be mindful of this before acting grossly irresponsible and using his veto power.
Those of us on the Left should repeat this argument as often as possible. To repeat in much simpler terms, a veto avoids accountability and harms our troops.
Here is a video of Speaker Pelosi's comments on the bill, the Iraq Accountability Act. For good measure, I'm also going to include what I think are two more amazing speeches. The second one is Representative Jack Murtha, who is a veteran and largely responsible for moving us so far in the right direction on Iraq policy. The third is Freshman Representative Patrick Murphy. Patrick is a fantastic guy and continues to make me proud with the way he is conducting himself in office.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tony Snow: WH Asserts Privilege for Conversations that Never Happened
Astonishing.
In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, Press Secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the President being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the President did not sign off on the firings.
CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the President, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield Presidential advice. Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."
Darn straight it's an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no Presidential advice on the issue? I'll tell you what they are protecting: Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, two of the President's most loyal and trusted advisers.
Snow further stated the true purpose of the White House's actions: to prevent a public 'spectacle' of a public hearing. Well, Mr. Press Secretary, you all have made your bed and it's time to lie in it.
This stinks to high Hell.
Further, on the O'Reilley Factor last night, guest Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly stated that legal precedent is that Executive Privilege applies only in the area of national security issues. For a court to change that precedent would be a major shift in judicial philosophy.
The issue of executive privilege is now dead in the water. There is NO circumstance under which there is a reasonable argument for Rove, Miers, et. al to NOT testify under oath in a public hearing before Congress.
In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, Press Secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the President being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the President did not sign off on the firings.
CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the President, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield Presidential advice. Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."
Darn straight it's an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no Presidential advice on the issue? I'll tell you what they are protecting: Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, two of the President's most loyal and trusted advisers.
Snow further stated the true purpose of the White House's actions: to prevent a public 'spectacle' of a public hearing. Well, Mr. Press Secretary, you all have made your bed and it's time to lie in it.
This stinks to high Hell.
Further, on the O'Reilley Factor last night, guest Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly stated that legal precedent is that Executive Privilege applies only in the area of national security issues. For a court to change that precedent would be a major shift in judicial philosophy.
The issue of executive privilege is now dead in the water. There is NO circumstance under which there is a reasonable argument for Rove, Miers, et. al to NOT testify under oath in a public hearing before Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
