DCist explains:
When it comes to who the D.C. Republican Party should side with in the 2008 presidential contest, the choice is obvious — Mike Huckabee.
Sure, the former governor of Arkansas doesn’t have much of a chance of winning, but he’s been consistent in his support of D.C. voting rights. In yesterday’s All-American Presidential Forum on PBS, hosted by Tavis Smiley, it was Huckabee who backed voting rights for the District’s 600,000 residents. In response to a question, Huckabee stated, “I believe that the people of D.C. should be able to vote for representation. I think that’s appropriate, for the simple reason of equality and justice….They ought to be able to vote.” And while his claims might have seemed like pandering to Smiley’s largely black audience, in late August Huckabee broke with President Bush on the issue, arguing, “They’re American citizens. They pay taxes and it just doesn’t seem right that someone could be even partially disenfranchised.”
Then again, 90% of DC voted for John Kerry in 2004, so that may not make much of a difference. Still, I’m glad to see a Presidential candidate talking about this–hopefully the rest will follow.
Thomas Friedman, back from the wilderness:
[S]ince 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.
[...]
You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.
[...]
I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security. But sometimes the necessary is impossible — and we just can’t keep chasing that rainbow this way.[...]
We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.
9/11 was a massive tragedy, one of the worst in American history. Unfortunately, while most of us saw a mix of death and destruction and heroism that day, some people saw a political opportunity.
Ever since, a certain type of craven opportunist has been using 9/11 to to forward their narrow interests. They have used it as a bludgeon to attack their political opponents. And since they’ve wrapped their repugnant ideology in the shroud of 9/11 (and preventing another 9/11), they have been treated as immune from criticism.
I’m glad to see Friedman has given up his Iraq cheerleading for a modicum of reality. No politician running for any office anywhere should be allowed to exploit 9/11. Nobody owns 9/11; it was a massive national tragedy. The only people who can lay any claim to that day are those who died and their families.
The 9/11 exploiters have had too much influence in our polity for far too long. It’s time for us to elect smart, practical leaders who understand that the world did not stop in September, 2001–the world has been moving on, and we need someone who can see beyond that clear, cool, horrible Tuesday morning. As Friedman said, we don’t need a 9/11 President; we need a 9/12 President, a 9/13 President–a President who can deal with the world today, not the world six years ago, a world that no longer exists.
America deserves nothing less.
The GOP, at it again:
The ‘Restore Patriotism to University Campuses Act’:
The name of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) bill to cut off all federal funds to Columbia University because of the Ahmadinejad speech.
First the MoveOn-Petraeus bill, and now this. Instead of addressing the serious issues our country faces, the GOP is content to fiddle while Rome burns.
From DCist:
[New Hampshire State] Representative Cindy Rosenwald (Hillsborough District 22) recently introduced legislation that would declare the state’s regret for the votes of its two senators and throw the Granite State’s support behind the move to enfranchise the District’s 600,000 residents. Rosenwald has said that she expects a hearing on the bill in early 2008, possibly around the time the state hosts its all-important presidential primary.
If we in the District are ever to stop being second-class citizens, we’re going to need brave Americans like Rosenwald to stand up and say enough is enough. Having 600,000 Americans without a voice in their own government is a shameful stain on our great American democracy.
Sadly, Republicans care less about doing what’s right than playing political games, holding desperately onto their dwindling power. Then again, the GOP has repeatedly shown that upholding American beliefs and values always takes a backseat to politicking and power-grabbing.
Thank you, Representative Rosenwald. If only we had a Congress full of good Americans like yourself.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives
Great words from Fighting Dem Patrick Murphy (D-PA):
Someone should tell chicken-hawk Rush Limbaugh that the only phonies are those who choose not to serve and then criticize those who do. I served proudly, so did two of my fellow paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne who spoke out and died just weeks ago. Generations of American veterans have worn the uniform with pride and we know it is no contradiction to serve your country and still disagree with the Bush-civilian leadership that mismanaged this war.
When someone like Rush Limbaugh says that soldiers who disagree with the failed strategies of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are “phony soldiers,” you have to consider the source.
Rush Limbaugh, who, in January, called Vietnam veteran Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) “Senator Betrayus” for disagreeing with President Bush, has made no secret of his disdain for those who serve and speak out. Where was Rush Limbaugh when it came time to serve his country?
What’s more, where was Limbaugh’s outrage when Max Cleland, a Senator who left three of his limbs in Vietnam was smeared on television? Where was Limbaugh when Senator John Kerry’s (D-MA) service was called into question in the form of millions of dollars in campaign ads?
My service was questioned last year during my campaign for Congress. Fortunately, the swift-boat attack on me didn’t stick because people in my district in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and across America know that if someone wears the uniform and serves their country they’ve earned our respect regardless of political party.
Sadly, the political debate in this country has devolved into who can be more outraged at the latest smear attempt on those who should be thanked and praised for devoted service. Rush Limbaugh’s phony outrage and derisive words call into contrast that which we all must honor: our Armed Forces currently fighting for their lives and our freedom all across the world. We need to be vigilant and speak out against those who question the value of that service — and that goes for people on the right and the left.
The real issue is how best to quickly, safely and successfully end this war. It’s time for Limbaugh, Cheney and Bush to end the partisanship and work with those of us who want a change.
Prior to being elected to Congress, Patrick Murphy served as a Captain in the U.S. Army. He was deployed to Bosnia in 2002 and then to Iraq in 2003 and 2004. In Iraq he served with the 82 nd Airborne where he was awarded the Bronze Star for service. He is a former West Point professor and criminal prosecutor.
It never ends. Limbaugh:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.”
The hypocrisy:
Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org’s much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.” A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush’s escalation in Iraq was against “the national interest.”
[...]
As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as “another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform” and accused him of going to Iraq “to pad the resumé.”
Conservatives like Rush don’t support our troops–they see them as convenient political props to advance their own agendas. As long as soldiers provide them a veneer of respectability and toughness, conservatives support them. But whenever someone in uniform speaks out against Republicans and their harmful policies, conservatives have no problem tearing them down.
Remember the attacks on Vietnam veterans John Kerry, Max Cleland and Chuck Hagel. Remember the attacks on four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark. Remember the attacks on the countless soldiers and generals who have spoken out against the Republican’s destructive Iraq policy over the years.
Sadly, this is business as usual for Limbaugh and his ilk–attack our brave soldiers who put their lives on the line because they disagree with you. I don’t think military leaders or soldiers are incapable of making mistakes or should be immune from criticism–if they make mistakes, if they behave badly, they should be dealt with appropriately. But there is no excuse, none at all, for attacking soldiers just because they disagree with your political views. Political opinions in no way mars, taints or stains the brave service of American soldiers, nor should it.
Your modern Republican Party–supporting our troops, as long as they keep their mouths shut. Shameful.
UPDATE: Just for the record, Limbaugh never served a single day in uniform–though he was eligible to be drafted during Vietnam since he dropped out of college, Limbaugh received a medical deferment due to a Pilonidal sinus.
From the BBC:
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been criticised over a fundraising party at which participants are being urged to donate $9.11.
[...]
The Giuliani campaign says it did not plan the event, which is due to take place on Wednesday evening in California at the home of a supporter.
[...]
“It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero,” said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF [International Association of Fire Fighters] president.
[...]
A Giuliani campaign spokesman said the idea was selected without the campaign’s knowledge.
But the host of the party, Abraham Soefer, also said the theme was not his responsibility, and referred other questions to Mr Giuliani’s campaign team, the Associated Press reports.
Utterly shameful. There are no words to describe how utterly dispicable this is.
Despite what the Giuliani campaign may say, the question is, will they accept money from this fundraiser? Will they allow their coffers to be filled by the exploitation of 9/11? By every indication, the answer is yes.
The simple truth is that Giuliani would not have the faintest chance of being President if he were not mayor of New York City on 9/11. His campaign is based on the exploitation of that tragic event–without it, he has nothing to run on, no record and no experience to make him a viable candidate. The Giuliani campaign was built on the ruins of Ground Zero, and it’s shameful displays like these that reveal Rudy’s political opportunism.
Nobody has gone from being a mayor–even the mayor of a large and diverse city, such as New York–to being President, and for good reason: no mayor has nearly enough experience to become leader of the free world. Giuliani has no national experience, no foreign policy experience, not even statewide experience– pick any random Representative, freshman Senator, newly-elected Governor, and all of them will have more and better experience than Rudy Giuliani. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are all more qualified to be president than Giuliani is, and I couldn’t imagine any of those three men in the White House.
Not to mention that Giuliani’s tenure as mayor of New York has been fraught with controversy and scandal. Even putting his significant personal issues aside, Giuliani’s record is exceptionally lacking. He built his command center at the World Trade Center, despite the fact that the WTC had already been through a terrorist attack in 1993. Not only that, but Giuliani’s failure (or refusal) to act on the recommendations given to him by the commission that investigated the 1993 bombing lead to the deaths of first responders on 9/11–it was widely known for years that the radio systems of the police, firefighters and EMTs were outdated and badly needed to be updated. Giuliani didn’t act on that recommendatio, and as a result many first responders didn’t get the order to evacuate the twin towers before they collapsed, leading to needless deaths.
This fundraiser is just the latest attempt by the Giuliani camp to exploit the tragedy of 9/11. Rudy’s record is shameful, and his campaign’s willingness to use 9/11 to shamelessly grab votes is utterly unconscionable. Of course, Giuliani needs 9/11, lest the country realize that Rudy is nowhere near experienced or knowledgable enough to be America’s next President.
[Full disclosure: I was born and raised in New York]
UPDATE: From the Wall Street Journal:
The third quarter disclosure reports out today indicate that Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is actively returning checks in denominations that are tied to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with eight returned checks to individual donors for $9.11, and one returned contribution of $911.
Giuliani, who was New York mayor at the time of the attacks, took some heat last month when reports surfaced that a group of California supporters were hosting a “$9.11 for Rudy” fund-raiser. Critics and presidential opponents said the former mayor was capitalizing off the terrorist attacks, but his campaign stressed that there was no direct connection between the individual donors and the campaign’s fund-raising operation.
I give the Giuliani campaign some credit for returning the donations. I’m not sure if they would have returned the money if there wasn’t massive negative press on this, but I think not. As I said before, Giuliani’s candidacy is built on the cornerstone of 9/11, a dispicable use for such a massive, national tragedy.
America is a smart and moral country, and after the Bush presidency I doubt we’ll be giving the keys to the White House over to another inexperienced, dogmatic President. We will never have to see the inauguration of President Giuliani, and that’s the way things should be.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives, Senate
From Gallup:
Public attitudes toward the two major political parties have not changed much in recent months. That’s good news for the Democratic Party, which moved into a superior image position when compared to the Republican Party more than a year ago. Americans not only continue to view the Democratic Party more favorably than the Republican Party in general terms, but they also choose the Democratic party as the preferred party for maintaining the nation’s economic prosperity. And, in a departure from recent history, Americans see the Democrats as the political party better able to protect the country from terrorism.
[...]
[...]
From CQ:
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)
• August 2007 receipts: $2.6 million
• Cycle-to-date receipts: $36.7 million
• August 2007 expenditures: $2.5 million
• Cycle-to-date expenditures: $16.1 million
• Cash on hand, August 31: $20.6 million
• Debts, August 31: $3.5 million[...]
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
• August 2007 receipts: $2.4 million
• Cycle-to-date receipts: $20.5 million
• August 2007 expenditures: $1.7 million
• Cycle-to-date expenditures: $13.5 million
• Cash-on-hand, August 31: $7.1 million
• Debts, August 31: $0
Democrats blow Republicans out of the water in terms of both popularity and fundraising–a situation that would have been unheard of only a few years ago.
2008 was already shaping up to be a favorable year for Democrats, and Republican problems with recruiting, retirements, fundraising, scandals, corruption and poor performance are making the electoral landscape that much rockier for them.
The Republican Party needs to shape up–fast–or they’re going to face another crippling defeat at the polls. Otherwise, the American people will continue to abandon them in favor of the clear leadership and the smart, common-sense policies of Democrats.
First Tucker Carlson beats up a gay man, and now this:
Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia’s, Bill O’Reilly reported that he “couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” O’Reilly added: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ “
It’s sad–and telling–that O’Reilly is genuinely surprised that most African-Americans are as civil, pleasant, personable and friendly as anyone else. This can’t be chalked up to simple ignorance–how can anyone live in modern America and believe that most blacks embody some violent, vulgar stereotype? What world does O’Reilly live in? How sheltered is he? How thick is the bubble he lives in?
Of course, O’Reilly’s statement has been widely criticized and mocked, resulting in the inevitable defensiveness, backpedaling, and lashing out. Step 1, shoot the messenger:
Sanchez reported that during an “animated” phone conversation, O’Reilly denied any “racial intent” in his comments and described the story as “a hatchet job by Media Matters.”
Step 2, shoot the messengers:
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly advised listeners to tune in to his Fox News program for “a great segment tonight” on how “CNN has now entered the dark side with Media Matters.” O’Reilly further claimed that CNN “will use the far-left assassins,” and “will prop them up.” Later in the broadcast, O’Reilly referred to “another attack on me by another far-left, loony, smear website that CNN picked up.”
O’Reilly shows an incredible lack of self-awareness and a stunning detachment from reality in saying something patently, ridiculously stupid–and then has the nerve to lash out at his critics for calling him on it. Sorry, Bill, but quoting your words in context doesn’t constitute a hatchet job–you’re getting criticism because you said something stupid, not because of some left-wing conspiracy against you.
And, of course, there’s Rush Limbaugh. After the feigned outrage and hollow condemnations over the “General Betray Us” ad, it turns out that Limbaugh invented the Petraeus-Betrayus pun in smearing Senator Chuck Hagel:
Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” advertisement “contemptible” and “indecent,” but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: “Senator Betrayus.”
Hagel is a Vietnam veteran who was awarded the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, the Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal and the Combat Infantryman’s Badge.
So it’s alright to attack a decorated Vietnam veteran for disagreeing with you politically, but it’s not alright to attack a decorated General for providing questionable information to the American people?
Where do these conservatives come from? Where do they get their twisted ideology, their warped worldview? How can they live their lives isolated from the rest of America?
I just don’t know, but it’s sad and shameful these people are given massive soapboxes to spew their nonsense.
Some statistics from the Pentagon, via Atrios.
[Click on the graph to see the full-size image.]
(Keep in mind that the Surge began in January, 2007.)
The figures speak for themselves. Violence against coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians remain massively high, despite the nearly nine months of escalation. Also, keep in mind that these are the Pentagon’s own numbers, so they might not even reflect the true levels of violence in Iraq (depending on the methodology they used).
It’s sad to see conservatives clinging onto their failed strategy, hoping that it will (eventually) pan out. These statistics should be a wake-up call to war supporters: the surge isn’t working. Your strategy has failed. Until the Iraqi government starts making political progress and playing a more active role in combating violence, these figures won’t change.
You have two options. If you want success in Iraq, then join the Democrats in calling for a new strategy including eventual withdrawal. If you want to keep failing, continue supporting the Republican party and their failed President.
Trouble at the NRCC. From The Politico, via MyDD:
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is trying to force out the top two staffers of the National Republican Campaign Committee — leading to a threat of resignation from the NRCC by Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) if it happens, said GOP insiders.
[...]
Boehner has not yet directly asked Cole to replace the two men, although his intention to do so is well known in House leadership circles. Cole has refused to consider the move and has privately declared, “I will resign before I fire those two,” said sources familiar with the dispute.
[...]The Boehner-Cole fight came to a head during a Sept. 10 meeting, which included “a lot of yelling back-and-forth” between the two over the campaign committee’s operations and effectiveness. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) also attended, but “they didn’t say much,” said a GOP strategist familiar with the session.
[...]
The NRCC has been heavily outdone in fundraising by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this cycle, reversing a trend in which the Republicans had a distinct money advantage.
The NRCC has raised $34.6 million this cycle, compared with $43.6 million by the DCCC, although the big difference is cash-on-hand, where Democrats have a huge advantage: $22 million in cash, compared with the NRCC’s $1.6 million.
The NRCC also has $4 million in outstanding debt left over from the 2005-06 cycle, down from nearly $11 million at the beginning of the year, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission. The Democrats’ debt is $3.1 million.
[...]
Inside-the-Beltway Republicans have grown frustrated with the NRCC for its unrealistically rosy assessments of an ever-eroding landscape for congressional Republicans.
Lawmakers are frustrated with Cole and his top aides for casting their net too wide by targeting Democratic-controlled seats that Republicans have little chance of picking up next year.
Some also gripe that Cole fails to manage expectations on the Hill when he refuses to acknowledge that the GOP’s chances for regaining the majority fade with every retirement or negative news story about President Bush or scandal-plagued Republican lawmakers.
Democratic successes and a favorable electoral outlook for 2008 have the GOP backed against the ropes. I give Boehner some credit for acknowledging the bleak reality the Republican Party faces, though Boehner’s own leadership has contributed significantly to the GOP’s collapse. Had he and his party put partisanship aside and worked with the Democrats to solve our nation’s problems, the GOP would be facing a far brighter future.
Cole is just one of many in the long line of overly-optimistic spindoctor Republicans. Remember in 2006 when, even in the face of certain defeat, Republicans were talking about expanding their majorities? Remember Karl Rove talking about all of the polls being wrong, and having access to “the math”? Republicans pump out unrealistic predictions to gloss over their impending defeat, and then they’re foolish enough to believe their own hype, fiddling while their party burns.
As the election draws nearer, expect more infighting amongst the GOP. Remember the massive leadership battle that raged after DeLay was forced to resigned in shame? There are going to be many more battles between Boehner, Cole, McConnell, Ensign and Martinez in the coming months–in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if movements sprang up throughout the Republican Party to replace some of these leaders.
In the end, though, I don’t pity them. This is a beast entirely of their own creation, bred through Republican greed, corruption, intransigence and arrogance. Hopefully it will tech them much-needed lessons as to how an American political party should behave.
If the GOP wants to avoid almost certain defeat in 2008, they better swallow their pride and start working with the Democratic majority to fix our nation’s problems. Otherwise, their stonewalling, their roadblocking, their obstructionism will provide them with little to show but a shrunken majority.
.jpg)
From TPM:
In the debate over the surge, there have been a number of questions raised within the government about an important metric for understanding whether the U.S. military’s strategy is succeeding — how Multinational Force-Iraq calculates sectarian violence.
[...]
The actual methodology MNF-I employs has remained unknown. Until now.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request I filed two weeks ago, MNF-I has provided TPMmuckraker with its criteria for identifying ethnic and sectarian violence. We’ve added the methodology to our Document Collection, and you can read it here.
MNF-I’s methodology identifies a number of factors, necessarily subjective, that help analysts determine whether an attack or a death should be considered sectarian. Ethno-sectarian violence is defined as violence “conducted by one ethnic/religious group against another ethnic/religious group, where the primary motivation for the event is based on ethnic or religious reasons.” MNF-I analysts consider the location of the attack — whether it took place in a mixed area or a homogeneous one — and the type of attack in order to determine ethnic or sectarian violence.
Interestingly, attacks against “same-sect civilians,” U.S. forces, the Iraqi government or Iraqi security forces “are excluded and not defined as sectarian attacks.” So even though Sunni insurgent groups loathe the Shiite-controlled government, insurgent attacks on it aren’t considered sectarian violence.
Additionally, MNF-I calculates that the use of suicide vests, car bombs and IEDs strongly indicate Sunni perpetrators; and reasons that attacks using those methods on “medical centers, market places or religious symbols, mosques, religious gatherings, stores/restaurants, and housing areas” typically indicate sectarian violence, since those entities are primarily used by “one ethnic/sectarian group.” MNF-I acknowledges that in these attacks “there may have been Sunnis killed or injured,” and though it says it excludes “same-sect civilians” from the tally, these are counted as sectarian attacks.
For executions, murders and kidnappings — situations in which sectarianism may be difficult to determine — MNF-I says it uses “host nation” reporting in addition to its own. Many media and non-governmental organizations consider information on casualties released by the Iraqi ministries to be self-serving, misleading or contradictory.
[Emphasis added]
As many have suspected, the methodology behind military calculations of sectarian violence is deeply flawed. The above paragraphs show that a significant share of the violence in Iraq isn’t added into these tallies, and many times they rely on numbers from the Iraqi government that are unverifiable (and quite possibly wrong).
Remember that this is also the methodology behind the Petraeus report. The Bush White House has learned that, if you manipulate the statistics enough, you can prove anything–set certain standards, exclude contrary information, narrow your focus enough and you can show any outcome you want.
We should pay as much attention to how the White House gathers information as we pay to what their information indicates, because the Bush administration has shown that they aren’t above twisting the facts to distort reality.
Not really news, but it vindicates what a lot of us have believed for a long time now.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, IOKIYAR, Iraq, Progressives, Senate
From Think Progress:
Today, the Senate voted 72-25 to approve Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) bill criticizing MoveOn.org’s Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. The “sense of the Senate” resolution “strongly” condemns the “personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus.”
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) has now called for an investigation into “possible elections violations by the New York Times for selling an advertisement to the liberal group MoveOn.org at a reduced rate.”
Neither Cornyn’s resolution nor Davis’s investigation have any bearing on the course in Iraq. The senators who today voted for Cornyn’s bill have previously chastised the Senate for engaging in “a colossal waste of time” on “empty” and “meaningless resolutions.” Some examples:
On Iraq debates/resolutions:
“Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war.” [Sen. John McCain, 7/18/07]
“We have just seen a procedure in the last 24 hours that was a colossal waste of time.” [Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), 7/18/07]
“I want an open and honest debate, and not political posturing. I was sent here to take action, not waste time on non-binding and empty resolutions.” [Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY), 2/23/07]
On the Gonzales vote of no confidence:
“[W]e ended up…spending our time on a meaningless resolution giving the president advice about who the attorney general ought to be.” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 6/12/07]
“This is a very disappointing spectacle here today.” [Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), 6/12/07]
On general partisanship:
“They’ve wasted the first seven months by being excessively partisan and creating unnecessary, in my view, disputes with a pretty robust minority of 49.” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 7/25/07]
“The way that they have proceeded, I am not sure that you can count on anything getting done, even those things that look like a fairly certain bet.” [Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 7/25/07]
Evidently, it’s not a partisan waste of time to condemn an advocacy group for a New York Times ad.
[Some emphasis added]
Don’t forget that, during the summer of 2006, the Republican Party tried to implement the poorly-named “American Values Agenda,” focusing on such important issues as:
- Stripping federal courts of jurisdiction in cases involving the separation of church and state
- A ban on human cloning
- Anti-gay marriage amendment
- Anti-flag burning law
- English as the national language
- Passing internet anti-gambling laws
- Prohibiting the confiscation of legal firearms during national emergencies
- Giving billions to the super-wealthy by repealing the estate tax
In other words, while a failed war raged, while America soldiers died, while the mastermind behing 9/11 ran free, while our civil liberties eroded away, while New Orleans drowned, the Republican Party spent an entire summer abusing their power to throw red meat to their base.
This is just one more pathetic attempt by the Republicans to shift the debate away from Iraq–which is deteriorating every day–and onto something irrelevant and pointless.
The American people are fed up with the obstruction of the Roadblock Republicans. I predict that, come January of 2009, there will be a significantly fewer Republican voices in Congress.
I read Pam Spaulding’s post about the progressive blogosphere’s near-silence on the Jena incident, so I decided to add my (very small) voice to the crowd.
Here’s some background, from ColorOfChange.org:
Last fall in Jena, Louisiana, the day after two Black high school students sat beneath the “white tree” on their campus, nooses were hung from the tree. When the superintendent dismissed the nooses as a “prank,” more Black students sat under the tree in protest. The District Attorney then came to the school accompanied by the town’s police and demanded that the students end their protest, telling them, “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy… I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.”1
A series of white-on-black incidents of violence followed, and the DA did nothing. But when a white student was beaten up in a schoolyard fight, the DA responded by charging six black students with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
[...]
The noose-hanging incident and the DA’s visit to the school set the stage for everything that followed. Racial tension escalated over the next couple of months, and on November 30, the main academic building of Jena High School was burned down in an unsolved fire. Later the same weekend, a black student was beaten up by white students at a party. The next day, black students at a convenience store were threatened by a young white man with a shotgun. They wrestled the gun from him and ran away. While no charges were filed against the white man, the students were arrested for the theft of the gun.2
That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students “nigger.” After lunch, he was knocked down, punched and kicked by black students. He was taken to the hospital but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening.3
Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17), Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder. Bail was set so high — between $70,000 and $138,000 — that the boys were left in prison for months as families went deep into debt to release them.4
The first trial ended last month, and Mychal Bell, who has been in prison since December, was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery (both felonies) by an all-white jury in a trial where his public defender called no witnesses. During his trial, Mychal’s parents were ordered not to speak to the media and the court prohibited protests from taking place near the courtroom or where the judge could see them.
Mychal is scheduled to be sentenced on July 31st, and could go to jail for 22 years.5 Theo Shaw’s trial is next. He will finally make bail this week.
[Emphasis in the original]
It’s not hard to see that racism is far from dead in this country–there are numerous hate crimes and incidents of racial violence every year. It may not be as common or institutional as it once was, but it’s still there and now it’s rearing it’s ugly head.
Things like this shouldn’t happen in this country, but they still do. We can’t sit by and be silent because dealing with racial tensions is uncomfortable. We can’t sit by and be silent because we want to think that this is an isolated incident, that this kind of thing doesn’t happen in America anymore.
If I could sum liberalism up in one word, it would be “equality.” Isn’t that the core of everything we believe in–that people should receive equal treatment? That they should have equal opportunities? That nobody should be treated differently because of who they are, because of the way they were born? This speaks to the very core of our political values as progressives. What are we fighting for, what are we campaigning for, what are we shedding our blood, sweat and tears for if not to prevent things like this from happening? If not to build a nation where incidents like this can not happen, do not happen, will not happen?
Click on the link above and do what you can to help. It may seem like a small thing, but millions of people doing small things is enough to change the world…or at least help a few high school students stay out of jail.
It’s the least we can do.
Criticizing a four-star General for giving inaccurate testimony to Congress and the American people? Wrong.
Accusing a decorated Vietnam veteran–who lost two legs and an arm in the course of the war–of being in league with Osama bin Laden? Perfectly fine.
Accusing another decorated Vietnam veteran of injuring himself and forging reports just to win medals? Completely acceptable.
The Republican party has lost all sense of perspective.
I don’t nearly have the time to deconstruct all the ridiculous articles written by misguided pundits, but I felt that this one deserved special attention–Dan Gerstein has a piece in today’s Politico.Gerstein is a Democrat who–along with his former boss, Joe Lieberman– criticizes Democrats at every opportunity, yet never displays the same skepticism or vitriol for Republicans. Let’s deconstruct:
To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days
But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.
Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.
Gerstein talks about a “realist” wing of the Democratic Party who, supposedly, dislikes the anti-war movement but are just too afraid of their “wrath” to say anything. Of course, Gerstein gives no names–or any other information–indicating who’s in this wing or what they’ve been saying.
I’m wary of this argument, because it’s completely ridiculous (and often used by Republicans)–somewhere, a sizable group of people hold a seemingly-unpopular belief, but never express it for fear of being ridiculed. Of course, no specifics are ever given, but we should both believe they exist and do what they say some pundit said so.
This isn’t 2004–two-thirds of the American people are against the war. It’s not as if Senators and Representatives have to tread carefully on the war to avoid a huge pubic backlash. Opposing the war is a pretty safe bet–in fact, it’s what won Democrats a majority in November.
the best the Democrats could do after several months of pressure tactics was, in that July showdown, to get four Senate GOP-ers to back a timeline for troop withdrawal, leaving them seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster and political light years away from the 67 needed to overcome a veto.
Yes, after months of putting pressure on Republicans–who, not too long ago, never would have dared do anything to oppose the war–we managed to get a handful of them on our side. I’d call that a progress toward ending the war. Of course, Gerstein misses the irony in portraying the anti-war movement as radical, intolerant and unable to appeal to moderates, yet criticizing them for only getting four Republicans.
Progress has been slow–slower than I’d like. Nobody said ending this war was going to be quick or easy–in fact, we might not see any real changes until January, 2009. But unlike Dan Gerstein, I’m not going to turn my nose up on making progress because it’s not fast enough. Every Republican we get on our side is one vote closer to ending George Bush’s war.
Instead, many in the movement have opted to punish their friends — a campaign is now forming online to mount primary challenges against so-called “Bush Dog” Democrats from swing House districts who voted for the big war funding bill in May.
I want to end the war. Hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans feel the same way. I don’t consider Democrats who want to stay in Iraq my friends; I would rather replace them with mainstream Democrats who want to bring our troops home. I’m certainly not the only one who feels that way.
More and more moderate Republicans are on edge and ready to vote for a change in course. And Bush’s announcement last week of a small troop withdrawal by the end of the year, as unsatisfying as it was to war opponents, was a concession in the right direction.
However, for the anti-war forces to consolidate and build on those gains, they are probably going to have to make some concessions of their own and accept some kind of bipartisan compromise along the lines that Reid is proposing.
In other words, if everyone who wants to end the war will just shut up, moderate Republicans will–for some reason,–support withdrawal from Iraq. Personally, I’ve never found that staying silent on an issue is good way to advance your cause–in fact, we Democrats stayed silent on Iraq for far too long, and we didn’t make any progress on ending the war.
And about this compromise that Harry Reid and the Democrats are supposedly coming up with?
Gerstein really should read his own paper once and a while:
Senate Democrats, who have spent weeks trying to woo Republicans to help end the war in Iraq, have taken a hard turn against compromise.
They now believe their best political strategy is to continue to play to a stalemate and blame an intransigent President Bush and his Republican congressional allies for refusing to negotiate an end to the war.
“We haven’t found much movement with the Republicans. They seem to be sticking with the president,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. “I think they’ve decided they definitely want this to be the Republican Senate’s war, not just Bush’s [war]. They’re jealous. They don’t want him to have it as only his war.”
Unfortunately, Dan, there won’t be a compromise. We Democrats have wasted too much time bending over backwards to accomodate spineless Republicans. Every day we wait, we see more lives lost, more blood shed. Republicans had plenty of time to work with us to forge a compromise, but time and time again they’ve shown that they want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely.
They pay lip-service to bringing our troops home, but when it comes down to it all they can bring themselves to support are toothless bills that continue George W. Bush’s failed war.
Gerstein is only one of many supposedly-liberal pundits, journalists, consultants, etc. who say they want to end the war, but oppose every effort Democrats make to bring our troops home. They endlessly attack those who are fighting for a timetable, yet they can never bring themselves to attack the Republicans who got us into the war and now refuse to end it.
Gerstein’s spineless brand of equivocation and capitulation put Democrats on the road to defeat in 2000, 2002 and 2004. In 2006, we abandoned his strategy and won majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time in twelve years. It’s time for us to stop letting these people dictate our policies–if they had their way, we would still be talking about how invading Iraq was a good idea and how George W. Bush is a great President.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives, Senate
From MyDD:
By a 57 – 42 vote, the bill to grant a vote in the US House to DC Rep. Norton, failed. 60 votes were required for cloture.
I think it’s an affront to our democracy that DC–America’s capital, a city with nearly 600,000 residents–has no representation in the United States Congress. They deserve full voting representation like every other city in this country–wasn’t one of the earliest rallying cries of America “no taxation without representation?” Yet, every day, the residents of DC are governed by laws they had no say in, taxed by a system they have no influence over, and are treated as an entire city of second-class citizens.
I was never a big supporter of the defeated bill–DC should get unconditional voting rights; we shouldn’t have to create a Congressional seat in a conservative state to balance it out. A decision like this should be free of politics– it should be based on doing what’s best for our democracy, doing the right thing.
Still, I understand that adding a seat in the House for the overwhelmingly-Democratic District of Columbia will never pass the Senate (unless Democrats control 60 seats). For DC to enjoy equal representation, some concession to conservatives has to be made. Still, I wish our Congress had the integrity to give the District full representation without demanding political concessions.
Justice wept.
From the AP, via the Huffington Post:
Gen. David Petraeus’ report to Congress and President Bush’s nationally televised address have had little impact on Americans’ distaste for the Iraq war and their desire to withdraw U.S. troops, polls show.
Fifty-four percent still favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, a measurement that has not changed in months, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. And despite slight improvements in peoples’ views of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.
Nearly half, or 49 percent, said Bush should remove more troops than he announced he would last week, when he said he would withdraw some forces but leave at least 130,000 in Iraq at least until next summer. Thirty-eight percent said Bush’s plan goes far enough.
Overall, two out of three said their views on the war had not been changed by presentations last week by Bush and Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
In a separate survey by CBS News, fewer than a third said the roughly 30,000 additional troops Bush sent to the war zone this year have made things better, while the rest said they have had no impact or made things worse. That was similar to the findings of a CBS News-New York Times poll taken days before the remarks by Petraeus and Bush.
Only 22 percent said they are willing to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq longer than two more years, largely unchanged from the previous survey. Nearly half, or 49 percent, said they should stay less than a year while 23 percent said they should remain for a year or two.
Despite the White House’s effort to bolster Petraeus’ testimony, despite the time they spent building up his credibility and defending him from his critics, despite their attempts to use Petraeus to sell the war to the American people, we rightly remain unconvinced.
We knew beforehand that Petraeus’ testimony was prepared and edited by the White House, that it featured cherry-picked statistics and manipulated information, that it was just one more attempt to foist a failing war on an unwilling nation. We knew what was coming, we got what we expected, and nothing has changed.
Why not? Because we can see that bad news keeps coming out of Iraq:
Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.
“The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August” with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. “There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi’a violence throughout the South,” it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.
[...]
The growing violence in the south is one factor making it unlikely that Iraq’s leaders — hampered by a “zero sum” mentality — will make headway in the fall on key political resolutions, the report concluded. “In the short term, Iraqi political leaders will likely be less concerned about reconciliation than with consolidating power and posturing for a future power struggle,” it said.
[...]
But in another trend seen in earlier reports, attacks spread outside the Baghdad area, rising in neighboring Diyala and Salahuddin provinces, where security remains “fragile,” as well as in some southern provinces, the report said.
Violence and instability in some southern provinces reflects primarily the growing strength in the region of the Mahdi Army or Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM), the militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the report said.
“An increase in its militia members has emboldened JAM to increase the frequency and intensity of attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces,” the report said. “This influx has occurred as militant elements moved out of Baghdad to avoid FAQ-related operations,” it said, referring to the Baghdad security plan, known in Arabic as Fardh al-Qanoon.
Moreover, the Pentagon assessment said the Mahdi Army reasserted itself in Qadisiyah province after coalition forces withdrew, illustrating how areas can revert to violence.
[Emphasis added]
It seems that every source of information on Iraq outside the White House–the GAO, the DOD, the intelligence agencies who put together the NIE–see less progress and more violence than anyone in the Bush administration does.
The American people aren’t dumb. We know who we can and can’t trust. We understand that the White House is desperate for progress in Iraq, and that they’re willing to ignore and manipulate reality to claim that progress is being made.
We know we need something more than “stay the course” repackaged, but–unfortunately–that’s all the Bush White House is willing to offer us. The lack of leadership from our President is appalling, but hardly surprising–this has been the case for years, and we have all seen how much our country has suffered because of it.
From CNN:
Iraq’s Interior Ministry has revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security firm whose contractors are blamed for a Sunday gunbattle in Baghdad that left eight civilians dead. The U.S. State Department said it plans to investigate what it calls a “terrible incident.”
In addition to the fatalities, 14 people were wounded, most of them civilians, an Iraqi official said.
[...]
An Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said, “We have revoked Blackwater’s license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq. The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday’s killing will be referred to Iraqi justice.”
[...]
Iraqi authorities have issued previous complaints about shootings by private military contractors, the Congressional Research Service reported in July.
“Most recently, a news article discussing an incident in which a Blackwater guard shot dead an Iraqi driver in May 2007 quoted an Iraqi official’s statement that the Iraqi Interior Ministry had received four previous complaints of shootings involving Blackwater employees,” the congressional service report said.
The Congressional Research Service report cited other concerns, such as “the apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions and the possibility that they could be prosecuted by foreign courts.”
The reported added, “Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq.”
Contractors fall under Justice Department and FBI jurisdiction for alleged crimes, said a Pentagon official, who confirmed the accuracy of the congressional report.
This is a result of the privatization of the American military. It’s not particularly safe or wise to rely extensively on extra-military corporate contractors to provide vital support to our soldiers.
It all comes down to a difference in allegiances. American soldiers pledge their allegiance to the United States of America and it’s people. They operate within a well-known and and well-defined hierarchy. There are clear regulations and a system in place to deal with violations of military rules and laws.
Contractors, on the other hand, pledge their allegiance to their employer and it’s profit margin. They operate within a hierarchy defined only by their parent corporation, and there is a lot of gray area as to what rules and regulations govern their conduct. In addition, the mechanism in place to deal with violations of the law is complicated and indirect, especially in the midst of a war zone.
Blackwater’s role is especially disturbing, because they’re not just cooking food or doing laundry or providing clean water–Blackwater provides well-equipped and highly trained paramilitary mercenaries to anyone who’s willing to pay the price.
The combination of paramilitary training, advanced weaponry, profit motive and a lack of oversight have gotten eight civilians killed. This never should have happened–the United States government should not be paying a private company to provides boots on the ground in Iraq. That’s what we have a professional military for, and these deaths show what happen when we provide military technology and authority to those who don’t have the appropriate training and motivations to use them.
Nor is this the first time Blackwater has faced controversy–there have been allegations that they have put profit ahead of the safety and security of their employees. This story from Time reports on a wrongful death suit filed against Blackwater by the families of four contractors who were killed in Iraq, partially due to the company’s negligence.
Blackwater’s role in Iraq has always been highly suspect, and hopefully these recent developments will keep them (and every other hired gun) far away from the battlefield. Because, in the end, it takes a soldier to do a soldier’s job.
UPDATED: From TPM:
The United States on Tuesday suspended all land travel by U.S. diplomats and other civilian officials in Iraq outside Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, amid mounting public outrage over the alleged killing of civilians by the U.S. Embassy’s security provider Blackwater USA.
[...]
The U.S. order confines most American officials to a 3.5-square-mile area in the center of the city, meaning they cannot visit U.S.-funded construction sites or Iraqi officials elsewhere in the country except by helicopter. The notice did not say when the suspension would expire.
The Iraqi Cabinet decided Tuesday to review the status of all foreign security companies. Still, it was unclear how the dispute would play out, given the government’s need to appear resolute in defending national sovereignty while maintaining its relationship with Washington at a time when U.S. public support for the mission is faltering.
[...]
Exploiting public rage over the killings of what police said were 11 civilians by Blackwater guards, anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demanded that the government ban all 48,000 foreign security contractors.
Al-Sadr’s office in Najaf said the government should nullify contracts of all foreign security companies, branding them “criminal and intelligence firms.”
“This aggression would not have happened had it not been for the presence of the occupiers who brought these companies, most of whose members are criminals and ex-convicts in American and Western prisons,” the firebrand cleric said in a statement.
Al-Sadr insisted that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki prosecute those involved and ensure that families of the victims receive compensation.
[...]
Many Iraqis, who have long viewed security contractors as mercenaries, dismissed Blackwater’s contention that its guards were attacked by armed insurgents and returned fire only to protect State Department personnel.
“We see the security firms … doing whatever they want in the streets. They beat citizens and scorn them,” Baghdad resident Halim Mashkoor told AP Television News. “If such a thing happened in America or Britain, would the American president or American citizens accept it?”
We have over 150,000 soldiers in Iraq–why are we outsourcing security work? What are our troops there for if not providing security?
Many of the Iraqi people see Blackwater and other contractors as lawless mercenaries who can do what they want without fear of reprisal. How can we create cooperation and reconciliation when we hire contractors who recklessly disregard the safety and security of the Iraqi people? How do we staunch anti-Americanism when we hire firms like Blackwater, who embody greed and profiteering?
It’s about time that our government take a good, long look at the companies operating in Iraq. For years we’ve heard reports of wasteful spending, shoddy practices, cut corners and deadly recklessness. Kicking out bad contractors certainly isn’t a panacea for all our problems, but it certainly couldn’t hurt.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Progressives, Senate
Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), “who lost his Senate seat in the wave of anti-Republican sentiment in last November’s election, said yesterday that he has left the party,” the Providence Journal reports.
“Chafee said he disaffiliated with the party he had helped lead, and his father had led before him, because the national Republican Party has gone too far away from his stance on too many critical issues, from war to economics to the environment.”
Said Chafee: “It’s not my party any more.”
Frequent candidate Alan Keyes announced on Friday that he has filed a statement of candidacy for president with the Federal Election Commission. Keyes, a former diplomat in the Reagan administration, ran for senator from Maryland in 1988 and 1992, for president in 1996 and 2000, and for senator from Illinois in 2004.
Breaking, from CNN:
Former federal judge Michael Mukasey has accepted President Bush’s offer to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sources tell CNN.
Who is Michael Muskasey?
From Wikipedia:
In 1987, Mukasey was nominated as a federal judge in Manhattan by President Ronald Reagan. He served in that position for 18 years and was Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York from 2000 to July 2006. During his tenure on the bench, Mukasey presided over the criminal prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair, whom he sentenced to life in prison for a plot to blow up the United Nations and other Manhattan landmarks uncovered during an investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During that case, Mukasey spoke out against leaks by law-enforcement officials regarding the facts of the case allegedly aimed at prejudicing potential jurors against the defendants. Chief Judge Mukasey also heard the trial of Jose Padilla, ruling that the U.S. citizen and alleged terrorist could be held as an enemy combatant but was entitled to see his lawyers.
[Emphasis added]
Some thoughts on his confirmation battle, from CNN:
Ironically, nominating Mukasey could cause Bush trouble from the conservative right.
In 2005, the liberal group Alliance for Justice listed Mukasey among those it considered “consensus” choices for possible Bush Supreme Court picks.
In 2003, liberal Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a leading liberal voice on judicial nominations, listed Mukasey as an acceptable Supreme Court choice in a letter he sent to Bush.
Those endorsements raise suspicions among conservative groups, a dynamic made worse by fears that Bush is wary of risking a confirmation battle over a conservative like Olson, because of the president’s low political standing.
And some thoughts from Glenn Greenwald:
Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists. And he made these rulings in the face of what was became the standard Bush claim that unless there was complete acquiescence to all claimed powers by the President, a Terrorist attack would occur and the blood would be on the hands of those who impeded the President.
[Emphasis added]
So, has Bush nominated an actual consensus candidate to be his next Attorney General? Mukasey, while nominated during the Reagan/Bush administration, doesn’t appear to have significant ties to the Bush family. In addition, unlike other potential nominees–such as George Terwilliger and Ted Olson–Mukasey was not on the Bush legal team during the 2000 Florida recount debacle, and has no real current ties to the Bush administration.
Though it’s undeniable Mukasey is a conservative–I would expect at least that much from this White House–he seems to be a less controversial nominee than many other on the shortlist. Is Mukasey the real deal, a somewhat-independent, andlegally-minded nominee? Or is he a stealth candidate who will end up serving the Bush White House at the expense of the American people?
I take all of this with a grain of salt–Bush has a history of picking sycophantic loyalists for high-ranking positions, and Mukasey’s record is undeniably conservative. Still, his recent rulings against the Bush administration is a cause for some hope, and I’ll be closely following how all of this plays out.
From CNN, reported on various sites:
BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here’s the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
According to the Republican leader in the House, the 3,781 dead and 27,753 wounded soldiers are merely small price to pay. For what? For some big “ifs”–if we can stop Al-Qaeda, if we can stabilize the Middle East. To paraphrase one popular author, “if” is the only word a thousand letters long.
But, as I’ve written before, Republicans don’t see Iraq as a war, as an actual conflict with real violence and real casualties. Boehner clearly doesn’t. They see Iraq as a chess game, as a battle of wills– it’s us vs. them, and all we have to do is try harder, wait longer, fight more and we’ll win. For the rest of us, though, reality isn’t that simple–Iraq is a complex and violent war, where the presence of American troops alone is no guarantee of success.
Boehner and his Republicans see those dead and wounded soldiers as a small sacrifice, but the rest of us–including the families of those soldiers–don’t. Time after time, the Republicans find themselves on the wrong side of the American people on the war because they refuse to acknowledge the reality on the ground. Instead, they deceive themselves, twisting the facts and falling in line behind the same class of pro-war cheerleaders who got us into this quagmire to begin with.
Boehner’s statement is offensive and shameful, but hardly surprising—Republican disrespect for our soldiers is as old as this war itself. And as long as him and people like him choose to deny the reality in Iraq, they should not be taken seriously by anyone anymore. Period.
Announced in an email sent to supporters. Via Daily Kos:
Jeanne Shaheen to Run for U.S. Senate
Will Discuss Her Decision Sunday at Her Madbury Home
MADBURY – Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen announced today that she is leaving her current post at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government to run for the U.S. Senate. She has served as Director of the Institute of Politics for the past two years.
“I’ve stepped down from my position at the Kennedy School of Government because we have major problems facing this country, and there is an urgent need for real change in Washington,” Shaheen said. “We’ve proven in New Hampshire that we can work together to get things done. I want to take that common-sense approach to Washington and help get this country moving in the right direction.”
On Sunday, Gov. Shaheen will speak at her home in Madbury about the reasons behind her decision to run for the Senate.
This is excellent news, especially coming on the heel of Warner’s announcement yesterday. Senator Sununu is extremely weak–he beat Shaheen by a slim margin in 2002, which was a banner year for Republicans Republican, and his popularity has plummeted since then.
Shaheen’s announcement has been rumored for a long time, especially considering the recent polls on this race:
July 20 Univ. of NH
Shaheen (D) 54%, Sununu (R) 38%July 14 Research 2000
Shaheen (D) 56%, Sununu (R) 34%
With the addition of Shaheen into the race, New Hampshire becomes our top pickup opportunity. I’m sure there are quite a few nervous men and women at the NRSC today.
.jpg)
To answer my own question from a few weeks ago, Warner’s in.
Our challenges are great, but the potential of Americans to step up and meet those challenges is more than equal to the task. Six years ago, we brought a bipartisan agenda of change to Virginia. It’s time to bring that same approach to Washington and our nation.
Gov. Mark Warner
UPDATE: This is the email Warner sent out earlier today:
Dear Friend,
Thirteen days ago, my friend, Senator John Warner announced his retirement from the US Senate. He has served Virginia and our country with distinction, and brought an independence and civility to office we need to see more of in public life.
After his announcement, I said that I would make my future plans public in the coming days. After a great deal of reflection, talking with my family and friends, I’ve reached my decision.
I hope you will watch my announcement video — and join us in this effort.
With best wishes,
Mark Warner
Paid for by Friends of Mark Warner.
From CNN:
A key Sunni sheik who united with U.S. forces to fight al Qaeda militants in Iraq was assassinated Thursday in a roadside bomb attack, officials said.
Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Reesha, 39, was head of the Anbar Salvation Council, a coalition of tribes that has been working with the U.S. military to counter al Qaeda militants in Sunni-dominated Anbar province.
[...]
Abu Reesha was one of several Sunni leaders who met with President Bush during his surprise visit to Anbar on September 3. In a photograph taken during the six-hour visit, a smiling Bush is seen shaking hands with the sheik.
Bush has repeatedly cited successful efforts to bring Anbar tribesmen over to the coalition’s side in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq as evidence of overall success by the U.S. military in Iraq. Since the Sunni sheiks began cooperating with the U.S. military, violent attacks have significantly decreased in Anbar, once a hot-spot for al Qaeda attacks.
It’s likely that attacks like this will become more common in the future–as tribal leaders align with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI is going to target those leaders for assassination. In time, it’s possible that tribal leaders will become less inclined to fight against AQI, fearing for their own lives.
And this occurred in the heart of Anbar province, which has been celebrated by war supporters as the standard-bearer of progress in Iraq. There is a good chance that violence in Anbar will increase as AQI adapts to the alignment of tribal groups against them and finds new ways to combat them.
The dynamics of Iraq are constantly-changing, but AQI and other violent groups in that country have proven to be highly adaptable. Unless the government moves past their current stagnation and learns to be adaptable as well, violent Iraqi groups will continue to assassinate key leaders.
UPDATE:
More on Reesha, from Time (via Abu Aardvark):
Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is also building a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but only to him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists — complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse risk being branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. In Baghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front’s impact on al-Qaeda is tempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned Sheikh Sattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personal fiefdom.
As useful as they can be in the short term, alliances with tribal or insurgent groups tend to be highly fluid and unstable. Some of the tribes fighting alongside the Marines today were once swearing loyalty to al-Qaeda and gleefully killing Americans. They can turn again. A senior Iraqi commander told TIME of his great fear that, after the Americans leave, the Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad would try to impose some degree of control over the Anbar tribes, sparking an armed revolt. “When that happens, the tribes will turn to anybody who’s willing to help them fight against the Shi’ites,” the commander said. “And guess who will be at the front of the queue?” Some American commanders have expressed similar concerns.
After all, it’s not just the U.S. that can regard yesterday’s enemy as today’s friend.
I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, but it’s clear that Sattar did not have Iraq or America’s best interests in mind–his alliance with the U.S. appears to be have been intended to solidify his power and grow his militia.
And that’s the rest of the story we’re not hearing–who, exactly, are these tribal leaders who are suddenly aligning with us? What are their motivations? Why are they really with us? And who’s to say they will stick with us once they’ve routed AQI and solidified their own power?
There’s more to this than meets the eye. Not only do we need to worry about AQI launching attacks against the tribal groups who are now working with us, but we also have to worry about these groups’ true motives.
In the end, we can’t be sure these groups will be on our side very long.
