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:

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Bush's Offer is not in Good Faith

Last night, I watched the O'Reilley Factor. It's not something I do often, because it is really "info-tainment" and you rarely see a valid presentation of anything close to a fact.

But, I wanted to preview what the right wing's defense of George Bush's bull-headed collision course with Congress would be. Predictably, they continue to use Clinton as justification of their declaration of executive privilege. They forget that they cried foul anytime that Clinton wanted to prevent his staff from appearing before the witch hunt that was run by Sen. Al D'Amato back in the mid-90's.

O'Reilley had former Judge Andrew Napolitano on as his guest last night. Surprisingly, he made it clear to O'Reilley that the courts have spoken clearly over the years on the issue of executive privilege. The established precedent is that this privilege only applies to issues of national security. It would be a major change in judicial philosophy to expand that definition of executive privilege.

Accordingly, Bush's threat to go to court over this issue is in bad faith. They must know they will lose a court battle. So, their strategy must be to delay this issue long enough for the media attention, and subsequently public scrutiny, to wain enough for Congress to back off.

Another interesting point made by Napolitano, which we may hear the conservatives try to use is that the penalty for lying to Congress is the same whether you are under oath or not.

Okay, so that sort of makes sense. But only for a moment. Bush's offer to Congress is that Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, et. al have a 'discussion' with the Ethics Committees that is in private, without the press, not under oath, and without a transcript. This begs the question that if there is no transcript, then who do you prosecute any of these witnesses for perjury? Accordingly, how does Congress ensure that the testimony they are receiving is accurate.

It's all a load of crap. If this Administration has nothing to hide, they will immediately adhere to the subpoenas issued today by the United States Congress. Anything short of that is unacceptable and a gross breach of public trust.

Stonewall Bush Dares Democrats to a Confrontation. They should accept.

George Bush has just finished talking to the American people for the second time in two days. At least he's taking questions today, but it's still as ridiculous as his comments yesterday.

He is clearly challenging the Congress to a confrontation over his staff and former staff testifying under oath about the growing scandal over the firing of nine United States Attorneys (nearly ten percent of all US Attorneys!). He is using the classic argument that says that if White House staffers have to testify under oath to Congress, they will lose any ability to offer confidential advice to the President. That is nothing more than a red herring.

They are free to offer confidential advice to the President until they are blue in the face. Until they start acting unethically. Then, Congressional oversight is warranted.

I still remember the Whitewater Hearings when one after another of the Clinton Administration was dragged before Al D'Amato's Government Affairs Committee to testify there about any number of issues. In these cases, the staff themselves were not suspected of unethical behavior, they were merely a means of seeking damaging information on President Clinton.

There are indeed valid reasons for White House staff to be prevented from testifying to Congress. This, however is NOT one of those times.

The President's position is nothing more than stonewalling. They have made a conscious decision to prevent the truth coming directly from the mouths of his closest and most trusted staffers.
Bush said, "If they are truly interested in information, they need to read all of the emails we have released. They would rather be involved in partisanship. They are just interested in scoring political points."

While he is on message, he couldn't be farther away from the right thing to do. His "fair offer" to have Rove and Miers testify off-camera and off-the-record is wholly unacceptable.

Chairmen John Conyers and Pat Leahy should pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the President. The ONLY reason for Rove and Miers to not testify under oath and on the record is so they A) don't disclose information damaging to the White House, and B) so they don't find themselves facing perjury charges for lying about what they said and did.

This is unacceptable. Democrats need to STAND UP and DEMAND that Congress get to the bottom of this. Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be created. At risk is the integrity of the Federal legal system.

My Friend, Mona Sahlin....

Many of you know that I was in Sweden for my friend's 50th Birthday party. Since I planned my trip, she was nominated to be the first woman to lead the Social Democratic Party of Sweden in it's long and storied history.

So, the trip had an unexpected element of excitement, as she was officially elected Leader of the Social Democrats on Saturday. As I do not yet speak or read Swedish, I'm limited in the news coverage that I can read about it.

Below, I'm putting two links. The first is a blog post by a good friend that I made while visiting Stockholm. He is the Editor in Chief of the Party newspaper. The second is from a website that reports Sweden's news in English. If you are interested in reading about my friend's exciting new position, please check them out. If she can bring her party back in the next election, she will be the first female Prime Minister of Sweden!

http://ericsundstrom.blogspot.com/search/label/Mona%20Sahlin

http://www.thelocal.se/6724/20070318/

What is Kay Bailey Hutchison Smoking?

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison just said "We are fighting for freedom for our children more than any war we have ever been in."

I'm so flabbergasted at this that I'm almost speechless. ALMOST.

She is pathetic and should take a history lesson. I've tried to call her office to see if they wanted to clarify this egregious act of stupidity, but their line is busy. Perhaps I'm not the only one to notice this. I'll update if I get through.