Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Last night I had a dream.
Last night I had a dream. There were six men, probably archetypes of defeated Democratic Congressional candidates, discussing the state of our Republic in a front yard. It could have been in my State, or in your State. One was still going door to door campaigning. Another had switched over to the other party. Most were discouraged. Gentlemen, and ladies, it was a noble struggle in which we were the champions of the old republic, while our opponents advocated the policies of empire--permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and erosion of civil liberties. History will vindicate us. Let us continue the struggle. Kenneth Stepp, the 2006 Democratic candidate for U.S. House, KY-05.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hal Rogers votes for Iraq troop surge by U.S.
Iraq Resolution Passes House – Hal Rogers R5 Kentucky Votes Against It!!!!!!!
Hillbilly ReportFeb, 17, 2007The House of Representatives approved the Iraq Resolution (H. CON. RES. 63) 246-182, with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats. Hal Rogers R5 Kentucky voted against the resolution. Click here for the roll call.
Hillbilly ReportFeb, 17, 2007The House of Representatives approved the Iraq Resolution (H. CON. RES. 63) 246-182, with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats. Hal Rogers R5 Kentucky voted against the resolution. Click here for the roll call.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Iraq War Vote.
Kenneth Stepp agrees with the New York Times editorial on Iraq, published today, as follows:
"On to the Hard Part on Iraq
"We welcome the House of Representatives’ long-overdue attempt to shake some sense into President Bush with a resolution opposing his decision to send another 20,000 combat troops to fight this disastrous war without any plan to end it.
"Published: February 17, 2007
"President Bush lost touch long ago with Iraq’s political reality — not to mention Americans’ anguish and disbelief at his mismanagement of the war. So we welcome the House of Representatives’ long-overdue attempt to shake some sense into Mr. Bush with a resolution opposing his decision to send another 20,000 combat troops to fight this disastrous war without any plan to end it.
"Yet yesterday’s vote, in which 17 Republicans joined the Democrats to produce a margin of 246 to 182, was the easy part. It takes no great courage or creativity for a politician to express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly unpopular and unpromising military escalation. Even if the Senate manages to overcome its procedural self-hobbling and approve a similar resolution, the war and the mismanagement will go on.
"The next necessary steps will require harder thinking and harder choices. Congress needs to do what Mr. Bush is refusing to do: link further financing for the war to the performance of Iraq’s Shiite-led government, which is making no serious effort to rescue its country from civil war.
"Congress needs to impose clear benchmarks and rigorous timetables, insisting that the Iraqi government stop equivocating and start disarming sectarian militias, adopt a formula to share oil revenues equitably and end employment discrimination against Sunni Arabs. Congress must be prepared to cut off financing if the Iraqis refuse.
"We fear that clever maneuvers like the one proposed by Representative John Murtha, reportedly with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a “support the troops” measure won’t help contain the war or make American troops safer. Mr. Murtha would link this year’s war financing to the Pentagon’s adoption of new deployment rules, including longer stretches from the battlefield for returning troops, more specialized training and better defensive equipment. That would let representatives cast a politically safe vote for financing the war, while forcing the Pentagon to gradually reduce the number of active duty troops available to serve in Iraq.
"This page has advocated many of the same reforms — but not as a back-door way of forcing lower troop numbers in Iraq. Congress’s overriding goal must be to find the most responsible way to extricate American troops from what is becoming an increasingly unwinnable war, while trying to contain the suffering and minimizing the damage to American interests in the region.
"Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the problem straight on and do what the administration won’t do. It must impose tough requirements and deadlines on the Iraqi government, and link the future of all American troops in Iraq to the timely achievement of these goals."
As expected, Hal Rogers voted against the resolution; Kenneth Stepp supports the resolution. The Kentucky Fifth District voted for the "stay the course" candidate in the most recent election; how is it going?
More Articles in Opinion »
"On to the Hard Part on Iraq
"We welcome the House of Representatives’ long-overdue attempt to shake some sense into President Bush with a resolution opposing his decision to send another 20,000 combat troops to fight this disastrous war without any plan to end it.
"Published: February 17, 2007
"President Bush lost touch long ago with Iraq’s political reality — not to mention Americans’ anguish and disbelief at his mismanagement of the war. So we welcome the House of Representatives’ long-overdue attempt to shake some sense into Mr. Bush with a resolution opposing his decision to send another 20,000 combat troops to fight this disastrous war without any plan to end it.
"Yet yesterday’s vote, in which 17 Republicans joined the Democrats to produce a margin of 246 to 182, was the easy part. It takes no great courage or creativity for a politician to express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly unpopular and unpromising military escalation. Even if the Senate manages to overcome its procedural self-hobbling and approve a similar resolution, the war and the mismanagement will go on.
"The next necessary steps will require harder thinking and harder choices. Congress needs to do what Mr. Bush is refusing to do: link further financing for the war to the performance of Iraq’s Shiite-led government, which is making no serious effort to rescue its country from civil war.
"Congress needs to impose clear benchmarks and rigorous timetables, insisting that the Iraqi government stop equivocating and start disarming sectarian militias, adopt a formula to share oil revenues equitably and end employment discrimination against Sunni Arabs. Congress must be prepared to cut off financing if the Iraqis refuse.
"We fear that clever maneuvers like the one proposed by Representative John Murtha, reportedly with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a “support the troops” measure won’t help contain the war or make American troops safer. Mr. Murtha would link this year’s war financing to the Pentagon’s adoption of new deployment rules, including longer stretches from the battlefield for returning troops, more specialized training and better defensive equipment. That would let representatives cast a politically safe vote for financing the war, while forcing the Pentagon to gradually reduce the number of active duty troops available to serve in Iraq.
"This page has advocated many of the same reforms — but not as a back-door way of forcing lower troop numbers in Iraq. Congress’s overriding goal must be to find the most responsible way to extricate American troops from what is becoming an increasingly unwinnable war, while trying to contain the suffering and minimizing the damage to American interests in the region.
"Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the problem straight on and do what the administration won’t do. It must impose tough requirements and deadlines on the Iraqi government, and link the future of all American troops in Iraq to the timely achievement of these goals."
As expected, Hal Rogers voted against the resolution; Kenneth Stepp supports the resolution. The Kentucky Fifth District voted for the "stay the course" candidate in the most recent election; how is it going?
More Articles in Opinion »
Friday, February 16, 2007
General Wesley Clark comments on Iran.
General Wesley Clark comments on Iran and U.S. relations.
Is War with Iran Inevitable?February 15th, 2007 -- Randy Risener
Guest ColumnBy Gen. Wesley Clark
[Editor’s Note: Clark is a former NATO commander and a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate who campaigned for Democratic candidates throughout the country in the 2006 elections and is an advisor to House and Senate Democrats on military and foreign policy matters. This commentary appeared first on the political blog, Daily Kos.]
As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region - Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President’s recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.
Since 9/11 the Iranians have tried on several occasions to open a dialogue with the United States. They, of course, had their own interests at heart, not ours. Yet, from dialogue some common interests might have emerged. The Bush Administration would have none of it, and branded Iran a member of the Axis of Evil.
During that period, with most of the world on our side, we had enormous diplomatic, economic and military leverage over Iran. Now, deeply committed militarily in Iraq, more isolated diplomatically, increasingly indebted to some of Iran’s crude oil customers, only modestly successful in gaining UN sanctions against Iran, the Administration has refused to change our approach, and has instead chosen to augment the least effective element of US power in the region - air and naval.
We are already totally dominant in air and naval power over Iran. Even with Iran’s new Russian antiaircraft equipment, no one should doubt that US forces could penetrate these defenses and strike with precision with minimal losses. Iran’s naval countermeasures in the Gulf can be largely preempted. The Iranians no doubt recognize this.
But the Iranians perceive American weaknesses on the ground, with an American Army too small to invade and occupy Iran, and too engaged inside Iraq even to threaten it. They see our soldiers through sniper sights, and from behind the triggers of improvised explosive devices, while they see themselves as a nation that gained considerable strength from a war with Iraq that cost a million casualties, took eight years, and involved withstanding missile strikes on cities and the use of chemical weapons. They no doubt believe that, whatever the current alignments of Sunni states, a US strike against Iran would bring outpourings of sympathy, public support, and waves of impassioned volunteers from throughout the Islamic world. They would see themselves as the heroic martyrs uniting Islam. The Iranians may believe this reaction would enforce on the United States a rapid, humiliating withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, leaving them military savaged but strategically victorious.
In this they might very likely be proven wrong. US power is far more sustainable in the region than Iran would like to believe, and the military humiliation Iran would suffer at the outset could well deter any outside assistance. The US does have a military option. But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies. Leaders on both sides should recognize that war is the most unpredictable of human endeavors, and that unanticipated consequences almost always follow.
I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort.
Military power aside, the US has enormous economic leverage over the Iranians through our influence on world financial institutions, international commerce and capital flows. While the latest actions against Iran’s banking system show the sharp stick of US power, the potential carrots are enormous, too. Islamic pride cannot be purchased, but neither can a proud nation ignore a more hopeful vision of its future.
The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran’s on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don’t we at least want the moral, legal and political “high ground” of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?
Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran’s under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast. "
Kenneth Stepp agrees with General Clark; we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is War with Iran Inevitable?February 15th, 2007 -- Randy Risener
Guest ColumnBy Gen. Wesley Clark
[Editor’s Note: Clark is a former NATO commander and a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate who campaigned for Democratic candidates throughout the country in the 2006 elections and is an advisor to House and Senate Democrats on military and foreign policy matters. This commentary appeared first on the political blog, Daily Kos.]
As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region - Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President’s recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.
Since 9/11 the Iranians have tried on several occasions to open a dialogue with the United States. They, of course, had their own interests at heart, not ours. Yet, from dialogue some common interests might have emerged. The Bush Administration would have none of it, and branded Iran a member of the Axis of Evil.
During that period, with most of the world on our side, we had enormous diplomatic, economic and military leverage over Iran. Now, deeply committed militarily in Iraq, more isolated diplomatically, increasingly indebted to some of Iran’s crude oil customers, only modestly successful in gaining UN sanctions against Iran, the Administration has refused to change our approach, and has instead chosen to augment the least effective element of US power in the region - air and naval.
We are already totally dominant in air and naval power over Iran. Even with Iran’s new Russian antiaircraft equipment, no one should doubt that US forces could penetrate these defenses and strike with precision with minimal losses. Iran’s naval countermeasures in the Gulf can be largely preempted. The Iranians no doubt recognize this.
But the Iranians perceive American weaknesses on the ground, with an American Army too small to invade and occupy Iran, and too engaged inside Iraq even to threaten it. They see our soldiers through sniper sights, and from behind the triggers of improvised explosive devices, while they see themselves as a nation that gained considerable strength from a war with Iraq that cost a million casualties, took eight years, and involved withstanding missile strikes on cities and the use of chemical weapons. They no doubt believe that, whatever the current alignments of Sunni states, a US strike against Iran would bring outpourings of sympathy, public support, and waves of impassioned volunteers from throughout the Islamic world. They would see themselves as the heroic martyrs uniting Islam. The Iranians may believe this reaction would enforce on the United States a rapid, humiliating withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, leaving them military savaged but strategically victorious.
In this they might very likely be proven wrong. US power is far more sustainable in the region than Iran would like to believe, and the military humiliation Iran would suffer at the outset could well deter any outside assistance. The US does have a military option. But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies. Leaders on both sides should recognize that war is the most unpredictable of human endeavors, and that unanticipated consequences almost always follow.
I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort.
Military power aside, the US has enormous economic leverage over the Iranians through our influence on world financial institutions, international commerce and capital flows. While the latest actions against Iran’s banking system show the sharp stick of US power, the potential carrots are enormous, too. Islamic pride cannot be purchased, but neither can a proud nation ignore a more hopeful vision of its future.
The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran’s on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don’t we at least want the moral, legal and political “high ground” of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?
Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran’s under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast. "
Kenneth Stepp agrees with General Clark; we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It's the Economy.
News For Real
Annoying Redistribution Division
Pass this along to any of your friends who still think Republicans do a better job than Democrats when it comes to running the economy. And if they say the information below is just a liberal smear, challenge them to prove any one of the facts below wrong. Let me know if they succeed. I won't be holding my breath.
1) The Bush administration has created the biggest budget deficit, debt, and trade imbalance ever while cutting funding for domestic needs like education, Medicare, and Medicaid.2) The administration's tax cuts favor the rich, no matter how you look at it. About 87 percent of tax benefits go to the 14 percent of households with incomes above $100,000. Households with incomes below $75,000 -- three-quarters of all households -- get just 5 percent of those benefits. 3) Bush signed the largest corporate tax break package in two decades, $136 billion. After World War II, corporations paid half the cost of running the federal government. Today, they pay 7%.4) The price of gas doubled under Bush. The top oil companies earned $25 billion during the quarter that Hurricane Katrina struck compared to $50 billion for all of 2004. Former Exxon-Mobil, CEO, Lee Raymond got a $400 million exit package. 5) The Republican Congress has voted against every minimum wage increase, except the one linked to getting rid of the estate tax for the rich. The real income of the average American household has fallen five years in a row. 6) House Republicans chopped education programs by $14.3 billion -- the highest cuts ever. College tuition has increased 34 percent since Bush took office.7) Since 2001, average monthly health care premiums have risen from $342 to $603. Annual deductibles have doubled. Today 46 million Americans (including 8.4 million children) have no health insurance, an increase of 6 million since Bush took office.8) The Senate approved the biggest bankruptcy law in a quarter of a century. Republicans voted AGAINST protecting senior citizens, the seriously ill, military members, veterans, and employees. 9) In 1983, the Greenspan Commission put Social Security measures in place that created a $1.7 trillion surplus in the system. This administration borrowed against and cut that to $153 billion while blaming citizens for not dying young enough. 10) In 2005, Americans paid $4.3 billion in withdrawal fees at ATM's and $16 billion to credit card companies in late fees alone. Republicans have suggested no remedies.
Thanks to Stephen Pizzo for the above information.
Compiled by Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center and author of Other People's Money and Jacked: How "Conservatives" are Picking your Pocket (Whether you voted for them or not).
Annoying Redistribution Division
Pass this along to any of your friends who still think Republicans do a better job than Democrats when it comes to running the economy. And if they say the information below is just a liberal smear, challenge them to prove any one of the facts below wrong. Let me know if they succeed. I won't be holding my breath.
1) The Bush administration has created the biggest budget deficit, debt, and trade imbalance ever while cutting funding for domestic needs like education, Medicare, and Medicaid.2) The administration's tax cuts favor the rich, no matter how you look at it. About 87 percent of tax benefits go to the 14 percent of households with incomes above $100,000. Households with incomes below $75,000 -- three-quarters of all households -- get just 5 percent of those benefits. 3) Bush signed the largest corporate tax break package in two decades, $136 billion. After World War II, corporations paid half the cost of running the federal government. Today, they pay 7%.4) The price of gas doubled under Bush. The top oil companies earned $25 billion during the quarter that Hurricane Katrina struck compared to $50 billion for all of 2004. Former Exxon-Mobil, CEO, Lee Raymond got a $400 million exit package. 5) The Republican Congress has voted against every minimum wage increase, except the one linked to getting rid of the estate tax for the rich. The real income of the average American household has fallen five years in a row. 6) House Republicans chopped education programs by $14.3 billion -- the highest cuts ever. College tuition has increased 34 percent since Bush took office.7) Since 2001, average monthly health care premiums have risen from $342 to $603. Annual deductibles have doubled. Today 46 million Americans (including 8.4 million children) have no health insurance, an increase of 6 million since Bush took office.8) The Senate approved the biggest bankruptcy law in a quarter of a century. Republicans voted AGAINST protecting senior citizens, the seriously ill, military members, veterans, and employees. 9) In 1983, the Greenspan Commission put Social Security measures in place that created a $1.7 trillion surplus in the system. This administration borrowed against and cut that to $153 billion while blaming citizens for not dying young enough. 10) In 2005, Americans paid $4.3 billion in withdrawal fees at ATM's and $16 billion to credit card companies in late fees alone. Republicans have suggested no remedies.
Thanks to Stephen Pizzo for the above information.
Compiled by Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center and author of Other People's Money and Jacked: How "Conservatives" are Picking your Pocket (Whether you voted for them or not).
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
U.S. House Begins Full Debate on Iraq War.
The New York Times reports:
"House Begins Full Debate on the Iraq War
"By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO
"Published: February 14, 2007
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The House opened a full-throated debate on Tuesday over the Iraq war as lawmakers began considering a resolution to denounce President Bush’s plan to add troops. Democratic leaders said the debate was the first step in using Congressional authority to intervene in the conflict.
Reach of War
“There is no end in sight,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new course of action.”
In the first hours, Democrats sought to present their case through the voices of veterans who are in Congress, offering a narrative running from World War II battlefields to Iraqi deserts.
The debate on the nonbinding resolution, scheduled to end on Friday, is the first substantive war deliberation since the Democrats won control of Congress last year.
"Republicans said at least 24 members of their party might join the rebuke of Mr. Bush, and party leaders forcefully defended the Iraq strategy. The resolution would not only send a disturbing message to American troops, they said, but also endanger America.
“This is a political charade lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it’s meant to represent,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is minority leader. “The question is. ‘Do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies?’ ”
"After negotiations over competing proposals faltered last week in the Senate, the House picked up the discussion and boiled down its resolution to express support for American forces and disapproval for the plan to add 20,000 troops in Iraq.
"On its face, several Republicans conceded, the resolution was difficult to oppose. Two Republicans, John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, instructed their colleagues to make the debate about the fight against terrorism.
“If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose,” they wrote in a letter.
"Many Republicans who spoke on Tuesday appeared to heed that message, framing the war as an important battleground in a global struggle against militant Islam.
“It’s not George Bush’s war,” Representative J. Gresham Barrett, Republican of South Carolina, said. “This is our war. There is only one way out of this war — victory.”
"With Democrats controlling the chamber for the first time since the war began, they did not allow Republicans to present amendments to the resolution. The tactic drew objections from Republicans, including Representative David Dreier of California, who said, “Our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national security.”
"Democrats dismissed the criticism, but sought to temper the tone of the debate, and the scope of the resolution, to avoid alienating all Republicans. Democratic leaders also distributed information sheets to help respond to Republican criticisms and shape floor speeches. Each representative is allotted at least five minutes for the floor speeches.
"The debate, which was scheduled to proceed to midnight for three days in a row, was tightly choreographed. Democrats started with the war veterans, leaving many of the fiercest war critics until later. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, for example, did not speak until after the dinner hour.
“My experience during World War II was much different than the hell our men and women in Iraq now must face,” said Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. “Sixty years ago, we knew our mission. We knew the outcome, and we knew the battle lines.”
"Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is the lone Iraq veteran in Congress. Before winning election in November, he was a captain in the 82nd Airborne. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his Iraq service from 2003 to 2004.
“The president’s plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong,” said Mr. Murphy, who recalled leading convoys up what was known as Ambush Alley in Baghdad. “The president’s current strategy is not resolute. It is reckless.”
"Off the floor, both parties monitored the debate, particularly its ramifications for new members who could be vulnerable in the next elections. Shortly after Mr. Murphy finished speaking, Republican strategists sent an e-mail message to reporters highlighting a quotation from 2004 when he spoke highly of the administration’s Iraq plan.
"Republican leaders and administration officials worked behind the scenes to prevent a wide defection. The White House arranged a briefing for selected members, linking them by secure satellite to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV in Baghdad, who spoke of the need for a troop increase.
"Ambassadors from several Middle East countries met several Republicans and warned them of the consequences of withdrawing troops.
"Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ranking Republican on the House International Relations Committee, seized on that argument and suggested that a rebuke to the president would resonate far beyond the Capitol and make the United States look weak.
"As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen spoke, she pointed to photographs of two family members in uniform who have served in Iraq.
“Our words will be heard by our friends, but also by our enemies,” she said. “No weakness of ours will go unnoticed.”
"The discussion foreshadowed an intense debate as Democrats prepare to assert authority over war spending. To fight accusations that they are failing to support the troops, Democratic leaders are leaning toward attaching conditions to money, not simply blocking it for financing the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
"The conditions could include barring the financing of permanent military bases in Iraq and limiting deployments of National Guard troops to no more than two tours of duty.
"As the debate proceeded, the rumblings of the far more complicated debate on financing began to surface from several Democrats who are urging the party to consider reduced war financing. Such a step is precarious, particularly for lawmakers outside Democratic strongholds. "Not so for Representative Maxine Waters of California, who leads the 75-member Out of Iraq caucus. Ms Waters called the resolution a first step in “reining in this president and his misguided policies.”
"As her voice rose, she said she had no choice but to oppose continuing to funnel money to this “war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied.”
Robin Toner contributed reporting."
Kenneth Stepp says, "Bring the U.S. troops home." Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell say "Stay the course and keep the U.S. troops in Iraq." What do you say?
"House Begins Full Debate on the Iraq War
"By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO
"Published: February 14, 2007
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The House opened a full-throated debate on Tuesday over the Iraq war as lawmakers began considering a resolution to denounce President Bush’s plan to add troops. Democratic leaders said the debate was the first step in using Congressional authority to intervene in the conflict.
Reach of War
“There is no end in sight,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new course of action.”
In the first hours, Democrats sought to present their case through the voices of veterans who are in Congress, offering a narrative running from World War II battlefields to Iraqi deserts.
The debate on the nonbinding resolution, scheduled to end on Friday, is the first substantive war deliberation since the Democrats won control of Congress last year.
"Republicans said at least 24 members of their party might join the rebuke of Mr. Bush, and party leaders forcefully defended the Iraq strategy. The resolution would not only send a disturbing message to American troops, they said, but also endanger America.
“This is a political charade lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it’s meant to represent,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is minority leader. “The question is. ‘Do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies?’ ”
"After negotiations over competing proposals faltered last week in the Senate, the House picked up the discussion and boiled down its resolution to express support for American forces and disapproval for the plan to add 20,000 troops in Iraq.
"On its face, several Republicans conceded, the resolution was difficult to oppose. Two Republicans, John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, instructed their colleagues to make the debate about the fight against terrorism.
“If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose,” they wrote in a letter.
"Many Republicans who spoke on Tuesday appeared to heed that message, framing the war as an important battleground in a global struggle against militant Islam.
“It’s not George Bush’s war,” Representative J. Gresham Barrett, Republican of South Carolina, said. “This is our war. There is only one way out of this war — victory.”
"With Democrats controlling the chamber for the first time since the war began, they did not allow Republicans to present amendments to the resolution. The tactic drew objections from Republicans, including Representative David Dreier of California, who said, “Our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national security.”
"Democrats dismissed the criticism, but sought to temper the tone of the debate, and the scope of the resolution, to avoid alienating all Republicans. Democratic leaders also distributed information sheets to help respond to Republican criticisms and shape floor speeches. Each representative is allotted at least five minutes for the floor speeches.
"The debate, which was scheduled to proceed to midnight for three days in a row, was tightly choreographed. Democrats started with the war veterans, leaving many of the fiercest war critics until later. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, for example, did not speak until after the dinner hour.
“My experience during World War II was much different than the hell our men and women in Iraq now must face,” said Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. “Sixty years ago, we knew our mission. We knew the outcome, and we knew the battle lines.”
"Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is the lone Iraq veteran in Congress. Before winning election in November, he was a captain in the 82nd Airborne. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his Iraq service from 2003 to 2004.
“The president’s plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong,” said Mr. Murphy, who recalled leading convoys up what was known as Ambush Alley in Baghdad. “The president’s current strategy is not resolute. It is reckless.”
"Off the floor, both parties monitored the debate, particularly its ramifications for new members who could be vulnerable in the next elections. Shortly after Mr. Murphy finished speaking, Republican strategists sent an e-mail message to reporters highlighting a quotation from 2004 when he spoke highly of the administration’s Iraq plan.
"Republican leaders and administration officials worked behind the scenes to prevent a wide defection. The White House arranged a briefing for selected members, linking them by secure satellite to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV in Baghdad, who spoke of the need for a troop increase.
"Ambassadors from several Middle East countries met several Republicans and warned them of the consequences of withdrawing troops.
"Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ranking Republican on the House International Relations Committee, seized on that argument and suggested that a rebuke to the president would resonate far beyond the Capitol and make the United States look weak.
"As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen spoke, she pointed to photographs of two family members in uniform who have served in Iraq.
“Our words will be heard by our friends, but also by our enemies,” she said. “No weakness of ours will go unnoticed.”
"The discussion foreshadowed an intense debate as Democrats prepare to assert authority over war spending. To fight accusations that they are failing to support the troops, Democratic leaders are leaning toward attaching conditions to money, not simply blocking it for financing the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
"The conditions could include barring the financing of permanent military bases in Iraq and limiting deployments of National Guard troops to no more than two tours of duty.
"As the debate proceeded, the rumblings of the far more complicated debate on financing began to surface from several Democrats who are urging the party to consider reduced war financing. Such a step is precarious, particularly for lawmakers outside Democratic strongholds. "Not so for Representative Maxine Waters of California, who leads the 75-member Out of Iraq caucus. Ms Waters called the resolution a first step in “reining in this president and his misguided policies.”
"As her voice rose, she said she had no choice but to oppose continuing to funnel money to this “war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied.”
Robin Toner contributed reporting."
Kenneth Stepp says, "Bring the U.S. troops home." Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell say "Stay the course and keep the U.S. troops in Iraq." What do you say?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Defund the War.
I'm leaning toward Kuchinik, but right now we have three Democratic candidates for President favoring an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: Kuchinik, Gravel, and Vilsack. More on Governor Vilsack's approach to ending the U.S. participation in the Iraqi war:
"Vilsack: Defund the War
"by mcjoan
"Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:54:32 PM PST
"Presidential candidate, and former DLC Chair, Gov. Tom Vilsack is calling on the Democratically controlled Congress to end the Iraq war by defunding it:
"While some contenders for the Democratic nomination have advocated a cap on troops, the Iowa Democrat said that represents staying the course rather than real change. As president, he would withdraw the troops and force Iraqis to take charge, he said.
"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to do it now," Vilsack said, to cheers, in a clear shot at opponents such as Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who said Friday that there aren't the votes in Congress for a speedy pullout.
"Those who voted for the war, those who voted to continue to support the war, those who voted to continue funding the war, can surely vote to stop the war," Vilsack said. "As an insider, it's difficult to effect change. ... As an outsider, we can change things. ... We win as outsiders."
"Hear, hear, Governor.
"There is no other way to force the end of this war than for the members of this Congress to recognize that they have a responsibility to oppose this president and oppose this war. The only way it ends is by cutting off funds. This administration will block all other efforts. The ultimate power the Congress has vis-a-vis the president is the power of the purse. When has there ever been a more critical time to use it?
"H/T to first-time diarist KingRooRoo.
"Update:
"From ABC News:
"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."
"Permalink ::
"Discuss (162 comments)" Let's bring home the American troops from Iraq, now!
"Vilsack: Defund the War
"by mcjoan
"Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:54:32 PM PST
"Presidential candidate, and former DLC Chair, Gov. Tom Vilsack is calling on the Democratically controlled Congress to end the Iraq war by defunding it:
"While some contenders for the Democratic nomination have advocated a cap on troops, the Iowa Democrat said that represents staying the course rather than real change. As president, he would withdraw the troops and force Iraqis to take charge, he said.
"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to do it now," Vilsack said, to cheers, in a clear shot at opponents such as Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who said Friday that there aren't the votes in Congress for a speedy pullout.
"Those who voted for the war, those who voted to continue to support the war, those who voted to continue funding the war, can surely vote to stop the war," Vilsack said. "As an insider, it's difficult to effect change. ... As an outsider, we can change things. ... We win as outsiders."
"Hear, hear, Governor.
"There is no other way to force the end of this war than for the members of this Congress to recognize that they have a responsibility to oppose this president and oppose this war. The only way it ends is by cutting off funds. This administration will block all other efforts. The ultimate power the Congress has vis-a-vis the president is the power of the purse. When has there ever been a more critical time to use it?
"H/T to first-time diarist KingRooRoo.
"Update:
"From ABC News:
"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."
"Permalink ::
"Discuss (162 comments)" Let's bring home the American troops from Iraq, now!
More on the 500,000 people peace march.
The following report on the 500,000 people peace march is repeated, without permission, from Hillbilly Report:
"Jan. 27, 2007 - 500,000 Marched for Peace, In Washington DC, And Margaret Lewis Was With Them
"Hillbilly Report
"Feb. 1, 2007 By Margaret Lewis
"Growing up in the 60’s I wanted to be a hippy. Living in Rineyville USA, I knew there wasn’t much chance of that happening. I settled for arguing politics with my dad, singing protest songs in my room, reading Abbie Hoffman in secret, and hanging posters of Martin Luther King, Bob Dylan and the Moody Blues on my bedroom wall. I envied the protestors. I knew, in my soul, they were doing the right thing. It took me a long time, but finally, I grew up... A long time to realize that this is my country, my government, and that the government was doing things in my name of which I do not approve. Rather than sit back and complain, wring my hands, and say “Oh my, there goes habeas corpus,” or “Oh my, 3000 dead in Iraq!” it was about time I do something about it.
"On January 27, I did just that. I marched in Washington, DC. Never before had I stood on Capitol Hill. Never walked the National Mall. But I finally made it. Just a plain old middle-aged fat lady from Kentucky, and I was there to march.It hit me hard when I stood in front of the Congressional Building early Saturday morning. Emotions flashed from awe to anger in a millisecond. I choked on tears and found it difficult to breathe as I gazed back at the People’s House. What a magnificent building, what beautiful symmetry, and how dare those SOB’s tolerate the Bush administration’s malfeasance and war-mongering….In my name! I turned to see the splendor of a solitary obelisk: the Washington Monument. What irony, I thought. A lone salutation to leadership and the American Revolution within spitting distance to such arrogant men as those that dwell within the halls of the White House and Congress. A bitter bile raised in my gut. I had never felt quite as ashamed of my government as I felt at that moment staring at the Washington Monument. I’d come early to the Mall. It was nearly empty; I prayed it wouldn’t stay that way. And it didn’t.Before the Rally began, I walked the Mall, meeting folks from everywhere, from Maine to Montana, Texas to Tennessee, Connecticut to California. "From Everywhere USA, they came. Slowly over the course of the morning, we gathered until the Mall was a mass of faces. Hundreds of thousands. Regular folks. Familiar faces. Young full of spit and vinegar, old with canes and walking sticks, new-age hippies dressed out of their grannies’ closets and grannies by the thousands. Moms and dads with their kids, and older kids with their reluctant parents in tow. And together we prayed. For over an hour, we prayed. "Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, we prayed. We prayed for peace. We prayed for wisdom. We prayed for justice. We prayed together.There were speeches, chants, and tears. "There were stories from uniformed Iraqi vets fresh back from the horror and there were the angry forlorn haunts of the Viet Nam vets, so weary to have to do this yet again. Celebrities and politicos gave their part to the Rally. But, it was the people who held the story. The people with homemade signs, with strollers and walkers, dressed in their Eddie Bauer and Nikes. "Hundreds of Thousands of Regular Folks. Then, we marched. Up Pennsylvania to Constitution up the Capitol Hill on to the Supreme Court and down Independence to the Mall again, we marched. My arthritic knees gave out at the top of the hill, so I sat on the curb with the Congressional Building at my back and I watched marchers for nearly three hours before I saw an end in sight. Hundreds of Thousands of Regular Folks.Oh, I know, you saw the conspicuous and the outrageous on the news. You were told there were just “tens of thousands” at the March. Let me tell you what you did not see. You didn’t see the motorcycle police using their sidecars to run over people’s feet. You didn’t see packs of heavily-armed, flack-jacketed, federal black-shirted storm troopers menacing the marchers. You didn’t see the horse-mounted police giving the crowd the thumbs up or the phalanxes of DC cops smiling and nodding approvingly. You didn’t see the Regular Folks…but by the hundreds of thousands, we were there. We were there because we, the people, are the government, and those men and women in the White House and the Congressional Building serve at our leisure. And when they need to be reminded again, I hope you will come. I hope I see you there."
52,000 residents of the Kentucky Fifth Congressional District voted "NO" on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq last November. On January 27, 2007 in the Nation's capital, 500,000 Americans demonstrated "NO" on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. We are gaining strength, folks. The Bushies still have enough votes to keep the killing of American troops in Iraq, happening, but they are running out of time. Like the Whigs and Federalists of old, their time is running out. They are in a free-fall. Not one successful challenger campaign last election was a Republican replacing a Democrat in Congress. They'd better abandon that war, or the American people will abandon them. Kenneth Stepp remains against the U.S. military occupation of Iraq.
"Jan. 27, 2007 - 500,000 Marched for Peace, In Washington DC, And Margaret Lewis Was With Them
"Hillbilly Report
"Feb. 1, 2007 By Margaret Lewis
"Growing up in the 60’s I wanted to be a hippy. Living in Rineyville USA, I knew there wasn’t much chance of that happening. I settled for arguing politics with my dad, singing protest songs in my room, reading Abbie Hoffman in secret, and hanging posters of Martin Luther King, Bob Dylan and the Moody Blues on my bedroom wall. I envied the protestors. I knew, in my soul, they were doing the right thing. It took me a long time, but finally, I grew up... A long time to realize that this is my country, my government, and that the government was doing things in my name of which I do not approve. Rather than sit back and complain, wring my hands, and say “Oh my, there goes habeas corpus,” or “Oh my, 3000 dead in Iraq!” it was about time I do something about it.
"On January 27, I did just that. I marched in Washington, DC. Never before had I stood on Capitol Hill. Never walked the National Mall. But I finally made it. Just a plain old middle-aged fat lady from Kentucky, and I was there to march.It hit me hard when I stood in front of the Congressional Building early Saturday morning. Emotions flashed from awe to anger in a millisecond. I choked on tears and found it difficult to breathe as I gazed back at the People’s House. What a magnificent building, what beautiful symmetry, and how dare those SOB’s tolerate the Bush administration’s malfeasance and war-mongering….In my name! I turned to see the splendor of a solitary obelisk: the Washington Monument. What irony, I thought. A lone salutation to leadership and the American Revolution within spitting distance to such arrogant men as those that dwell within the halls of the White House and Congress. A bitter bile raised in my gut. I had never felt quite as ashamed of my government as I felt at that moment staring at the Washington Monument. I’d come early to the Mall. It was nearly empty; I prayed it wouldn’t stay that way. And it didn’t.Before the Rally began, I walked the Mall, meeting folks from everywhere, from Maine to Montana, Texas to Tennessee, Connecticut to California. "From Everywhere USA, they came. Slowly over the course of the morning, we gathered until the Mall was a mass of faces. Hundreds of thousands. Regular folks. Familiar faces. Young full of spit and vinegar, old with canes and walking sticks, new-age hippies dressed out of their grannies’ closets and grannies by the thousands. Moms and dads with their kids, and older kids with their reluctant parents in tow. And together we prayed. For over an hour, we prayed. "Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, we prayed. We prayed for peace. We prayed for wisdom. We prayed for justice. We prayed together.There were speeches, chants, and tears. "There were stories from uniformed Iraqi vets fresh back from the horror and there were the angry forlorn haunts of the Viet Nam vets, so weary to have to do this yet again. Celebrities and politicos gave their part to the Rally. But, it was the people who held the story. The people with homemade signs, with strollers and walkers, dressed in their Eddie Bauer and Nikes. "Hundreds of Thousands of Regular Folks. Then, we marched. Up Pennsylvania to Constitution up the Capitol Hill on to the Supreme Court and down Independence to the Mall again, we marched. My arthritic knees gave out at the top of the hill, so I sat on the curb with the Congressional Building at my back and I watched marchers for nearly three hours before I saw an end in sight. Hundreds of Thousands of Regular Folks.Oh, I know, you saw the conspicuous and the outrageous on the news. You were told there were just “tens of thousands” at the March. Let me tell you what you did not see. You didn’t see the motorcycle police using their sidecars to run over people’s feet. You didn’t see packs of heavily-armed, flack-jacketed, federal black-shirted storm troopers menacing the marchers. You didn’t see the horse-mounted police giving the crowd the thumbs up or the phalanxes of DC cops smiling and nodding approvingly. You didn’t see the Regular Folks…but by the hundreds of thousands, we were there. We were there because we, the people, are the government, and those men and women in the White House and the Congressional Building serve at our leisure. And when they need to be reminded again, I hope you will come. I hope I see you there."
52,000 residents of the Kentucky Fifth Congressional District voted "NO" on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq last November. On January 27, 2007 in the Nation's capital, 500,000 Americans demonstrated "NO" on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. We are gaining strength, folks. The Bushies still have enough votes to keep the killing of American troops in Iraq, happening, but they are running out of time. Like the Whigs and Federalists of old, their time is running out. They are in a free-fall. Not one successful challenger campaign last election was a Republican replacing a Democrat in Congress. They'd better abandon that war, or the American people will abandon them. Kenneth Stepp remains against the U.S. military occupation of Iraq.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The New American examines the new Congress.
The New American magazine examines the new Congress. Since there is only a thirty vote majority in the U.S. House for the Democrats, The New American does not think there are enough anti-war votes, and thinks the war will continue. Kenneth Stepp was the anti-war candidate in the Kentucky Fifth District of the U.S. House, but was defeated by Hal "stay- the- course" Rogers--another vote for staying in the war, and we are staying in the war as a result of the vote of the Kentucky Fifth U.S. House District to stay the course and keep U.S. troops in Iraq in the war. This from The New American:
"In The News : TNA Online
"Last Updated:Jan 23rd, 2007 - 10:18:08
"New Faces, Same Status Quo (Excerpt)Gary BenoitFebruary 5, 2007
"Email this article Printer friendly page
"A look at the 110th Congress.
"If we want our lawmakers to work for a "new direction" — and a direction to our liking — we must first recognize it will not happen if Congress is left to its own devices.
"The election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country," Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in her first speech as the Speaker of the House. "Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq."
"Mounting public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War was a major factor contributing to the transfer of majority control in both the House and Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. However, those voters who treated last fall's congressional election as a referendum against the war in Iraq may soon be disappointed with what the new Democratic Congress does, or fails to do, to oppose George W. Bush's Iraq policy."
Kenneth Stepp says, pull the U.S. troops out of Iraq now.
"In The News : TNA Online
"Last Updated:Jan 23rd, 2007 - 10:18:08
"New Faces, Same Status Quo (Excerpt)Gary BenoitFebruary 5, 2007
"Email this article Printer friendly page
"A look at the 110th Congress.
"If we want our lawmakers to work for a "new direction" — and a direction to our liking — we must first recognize it will not happen if Congress is left to its own devices.
"The election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country," Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in her first speech as the Speaker of the House. "Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq."
"Mounting public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War was a major factor contributing to the transfer of majority control in both the House and Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. However, those voters who treated last fall's congressional election as a referendum against the war in Iraq may soon be disappointed with what the new Democratic Congress does, or fails to do, to oppose George W. Bush's Iraq policy."
Kenneth Stepp says, pull the U.S. troops out of Iraq now.
500,000 for Peace.
Last weekend was a truly inspiring show of public support for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. An eye-popping 500,000 peace voters and activists from across the country gathered in Washington, DC to rally, sing, march and lobby for an end to the occupation of Iraq. More than 1,000 people stayed through Monday for what was one of the largest congressional lobby days in our Capitol's history. To everyone who attended an event in DC or your hometown, thank you for making it a success!
If you missed last week's rallies, there is still plenty for you to do. Nationwide acts of civil disobedience are set to begin the first week of February; read below to find out how to get involved! We also have an update on legislation that is moving through Congress and we discuss the potential of a US war on Iran.
If you missed last week's rallies, there is still plenty for you to do. Nationwide acts of civil disobedience are set to begin the first week of February; read below to find out how to get involved! We also have an update on legislation that is moving through Congress and we discuss the potential of a US war on Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
