Remember when the selection of Alberto Gonzales was seen as a step toward government diversity? Boy, did it hurt to find out that he wasn't really qualified for the job. But now there is a new nominee in town and his name is Mike Mukasey (forgive that his monogram is the same as Marilyn Manson, Marilyn Monroe or Mickey Mouse).
The Who once said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... we want to avoid another fiasco in the AG position by knowing more about the "new boss."
We know he and Rudy Guiliani are best friends, so there's that. Beyond the fact that he is pro-PATRIOT Act, but also made a legal judgment that said enemy combatants should actually have access to lawyers, and that the Blind Sheik and his pals should have a life sentence for the first attack of the WTC.
The Whitehouse Raves: Michael Mukasey, a strong Attorney General
Then there's the always conservative WSJ (well actually the law blog: Seven Things to Know About Michael Mukasey:
But the US News and World Report has 3 more things you gotsta know.
Here's the thing, he's from New York and people like to think of even conservatives from New York as being reasonable.
So as long as the Dem leadership doesn't mind and the Reps don't mind--it looks like we will have a Muka Mike as the AG--I wonder where he stands on prosecuting former AGs...
Tuesday, September 18
This is What Democracy Looks Like: Take 2
A University of Florida student was tased and arrested after trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum.
Videos of the incident posted on several Web sites show officers pulling Andrew Meyer, 21, away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
"He apparently asked several questions _ he went on for quite awhile _ then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.
Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting. Meyer says he will walk out if the officers let him go.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground and yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is Tasered. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records. No bond had been set. Meyer was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday morning, a jail official said.
It was not known if Meyer had an attorney.
Orlando said university police would conduct an internal investigation.
"The police department does have a standard procedure for when they use force, including when they use a Taser," Orlando said. "That is what the internal investigation would address _ whether the proper procedures were followed, whether the officers acted appropriately."
Videos of the incident posted on several Web sites show officers pulling Andrew Meyer, 21, away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
"He apparently asked several questions _ he went on for quite awhile _ then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.
Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting. Meyer says he will walk out if the officers let him go.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground and yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is Tasered. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records. No bond had been set. Meyer was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday morning, a jail official said.
It was not known if Meyer had an attorney.
Orlando said university police would conduct an internal investigation.
"The police department does have a standard procedure for when they use force, including when they use a Taser," Orlando said. "That is what the internal investigation would address _ whether the proper procedures were followed, whether the officers acted appropriately."
Die-In For Peace Thursday
The U.I. Antiwar Committee Presents Rally / March / and Symbolic Die-In for Peace
When: Thursday Sept 20th: 6pm
Where: Pedestrian Mall
Why: To let our representatives know that we want the troops to come home NOW, and to tell President Bush that we do not believe that pulling the surge out by Spring 2008 is a "significant withdrawal of troops"!!!!!!!
Come and make your voice be heard. It is up to the people to ramp up the pressure to bring our brave man and women in the armed forces home.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to attend all University of Iowa events. If you are a person with a disability who requires accommodation in order to participate in this event, or for further information, please email uiantiwar@riseup.net
Brian Shearer
U.I. Antiwar Committee
When: Thursday Sept 20th: 6pm
Where: Pedestrian Mall
Why: To let our representatives know that we want the troops to come home NOW, and to tell President Bush that we do not believe that pulling the surge out by Spring 2008 is a "significant withdrawal of troops"!!!!!!!
Come and make your voice be heard. It is up to the people to ramp up the pressure to bring our brave man and women in the armed forces home.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to attend all University of Iowa events. If you are a person with a disability who requires accommodation in order to participate in this event, or for further information, please email uiantiwar@riseup.net
Brian Shearer
U.I. Antiwar Committee
Viktor Bout: Equal Opportunity Merchant of Death
If you caught the Daily Show recently, you have heard of Viktor Bout. If you ever need a ton of frozen chicken or RPGs, Viktor is your guy and IRBUS is your company. Bout and his company have been everywhere you don't want to be, including Iraq. Viktor Bout is, well, read this from paragon of reportage, Men's Vogue
Major Christopher Walker landed at Baghdad International Airport in August 2003 to oversee the largest U.S. Army air cargo operation since World War II, as many as 60 civilian planes from around the world were touching down each day to replenish supply lines and rebuild Iraq. At the airport's freight field, Walker, 37, watched as forklifts scuttled in and out of storage bays like motorized beetles, unloading Humvees, disassembled oil rigs, surgery equipment, frozen food, bulletproof vests, and a ceaseless issue of mail and courier packages. With the military's own cargo planes already at capacity and the conditions too dangerous for private American firms, defense contracting officials had turned to air companies based in neighboring Middle Eastern airfields—often hiring Russians, who flew by the seat of their pants and fit right in with the airport's cowboy environment. Their ancient cargo planes were also better suited than newer American models for the pocked runway and perilously steep flight angles into the airfield. "They could take bad runways, crash landings, and keep on flying," says Walker. "Airbuses and Boeings were just not built for that kind of wartime stress." But one morning in late spring 2004, Walker flicked on his laptop and saw an urgent e-mail from his superior. There appeared to be an embarrassing problem. State Department and congressional officials in Washington were up in arms about a British newspaper story claiming that one of the Russian air firms delivering goods to U.S. forces belonged to Viktor Bout, the world's most notorious arms dealer.
Newsweek in 2006 reported "a Texas charter firm allegedly controlled by Bout was making repeated flights to Iraq—courtesy of a Pentagon contract allowing it to refuel at U.S. military bases. One reason for the flights, sources say, was that the firm was flying on behalf of Kellogg Brown & Root, the division of Halliburton hired to rebuild Iraq's oilfields."
For more, read this from authors Doug Farah and Stephan Braun.
Major Christopher Walker landed at Baghdad International Airport in August 2003 to oversee the largest U.S. Army air cargo operation since World War II, as many as 60 civilian planes from around the world were touching down each day to replenish supply lines and rebuild Iraq. At the airport's freight field, Walker, 37, watched as forklifts scuttled in and out of storage bays like motorized beetles, unloading Humvees, disassembled oil rigs, surgery equipment, frozen food, bulletproof vests, and a ceaseless issue of mail and courier packages. With the military's own cargo planes already at capacity and the conditions too dangerous for private American firms, defense contracting officials had turned to air companies based in neighboring Middle Eastern airfields—often hiring Russians, who flew by the seat of their pants and fit right in with the airport's cowboy environment. Their ancient cargo planes were also better suited than newer American models for the pocked runway and perilously steep flight angles into the airfield. "They could take bad runways, crash landings, and keep on flying," says Walker. "Airbuses and Boeings were just not built for that kind of wartime stress." But one morning in late spring 2004, Walker flicked on his laptop and saw an urgent e-mail from his superior. There appeared to be an embarrassing problem. State Department and congressional officials in Washington were up in arms about a British newspaper story claiming that one of the Russian air firms delivering goods to U.S. forces belonged to Viktor Bout, the world's most notorious arms dealer.
Newsweek in 2006 reported "a Texas charter firm allegedly controlled by Bout was making repeated flights to Iraq—courtesy of a Pentagon contract allowing it to refuel at U.S. military bases. One reason for the flights, sources say, was that the firm was flying on behalf of Kellogg Brown & Root, the division of Halliburton hired to rebuild Iraq's oilfields."
For more, read this from authors Doug Farah and Stephan Braun.
Peace Celebration Fri Sept. 21 and Concert on the Ped Mall Sat. September 22
The Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City will host a nonsectarian celebration of peace in honor of the UN Day of Peace from 7 to 9 pm on Friday, September 21st. Readings, songs of peace, and a meditation for peace will take place. The public is cordially invited. The Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City is located on the corner of Gilbert and Iowa.
Singer-songwriter Jerry Leggett will sing out for peace at a free concert on the Iowa City Pedestrian Mall on Saturday, September 22nd at noon. Traveling with a vintage RV christened "The Peace Bubble" that has taken him all over the U.S. on a year-long peace mission, Leggett will perform classic peace standards by the Beatles, Bob Dylan and Tracy Chapman, along with original songs.
Leggett describes his tour as "a nonpartisan effort to celebrate the ideals that make for peace in the heart and peace in the world. What if we all paused for a moment of peace at noontime and pondered another world? What if the world we imagine is possible?" Besides singing, Leggett has been collecting interviews with people that share their vision of a more peaceful world.
You can listen to a sampling of Jerrys music and see interviews at peacebubble.org or better yet, join Jerry and the Peace Bubble on the ped mall as part of lifting up our hopes for a peace-filled world. This local concert is being organized by the PEACE Iowa and Faith United Church of Christ.
For more info, contact: carol-tyx@uiowa.edu.
Singer-songwriter Jerry Leggett will sing out for peace at a free concert on the Iowa City Pedestrian Mall on Saturday, September 22nd at noon. Traveling with a vintage RV christened "The Peace Bubble" that has taken him all over the U.S. on a year-long peace mission, Leggett will perform classic peace standards by the Beatles, Bob Dylan and Tracy Chapman, along with original songs.
Leggett describes his tour as "a nonpartisan effort to celebrate the ideals that make for peace in the heart and peace in the world. What if we all paused for a moment of peace at noontime and pondered another world? What if the world we imagine is possible?" Besides singing, Leggett has been collecting interviews with people that share their vision of a more peaceful world.
You can listen to a sampling of Jerrys music and see interviews at peacebubble.org or better yet, join Jerry and the Peace Bubble on the ped mall as part of lifting up our hopes for a peace-filled world. This local concert is being organized by the PEACE Iowa and Faith United Church of Christ.
For more info, contact: carol-tyx@uiowa.edu.
Monday, September 17
Blackwater Banned in Iraq
The BBC and CNN just broke this story.
Blackwater security personnel on board a helicopter in Baghdad (2005)
As many as 20,000 private security contractors are working in Iraq
Iraq has cancelled the licence of the private security firm, Blackwater USA, after it was involved in a gunfight in which at least eight civilians died.
The Iraqi interior ministry said the contractor, based in North Carolina, was now banned from operating in Iraq.
The Blackwater workers, who were contracted by the US state department, apparently opened fire after coming under attack in Baghdad on Sunday.
Thousands of private security guards are employed in lawless Iraq.
They are often heavily armed, but critics say some are not properly trained and are not accountable except to their employers.
"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," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said Monday. "The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice."
Blackwater security personnel on board a helicopter in Baghdad (2005)
As many as 20,000 private security contractors are working in Iraq
Iraq has cancelled the licence of the private security firm, Blackwater USA, after it was involved in a gunfight in which at least eight civilians died.
The Iraqi interior ministry said the contractor, based in North Carolina, was now banned from operating in Iraq.
The Blackwater workers, who were contracted by the US state department, apparently opened fire after coming under attack in Baghdad on Sunday.
Thousands of private security guards are employed in lawless Iraq.
They are often heavily armed, but critics say some are not properly trained and are not accountable except to their employers.
"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," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said Monday. "The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice."
Rod Sullivan Running for Second Term
In Rod's own words
"you heard it here first: I am announcing today that I will seek reelection to a second term as County Supervisor.
There have been several significant accomplishments during my term in office. Since I joined the Board, Johnson County has:
* Passed a Human Rights Ordinance, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Passed a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Joined the Sierra Club Cool Counties Initiative, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Created a Trails Committee and for the first time created a line item for trails in the budget;
* Created a Commission for a Livable Community for Seniors;
* Instituted a highly successful Earned Income Tax Credit program;
* Dramatically increased funding for Shelter House;
* Begun a program for upgrading gravel roads to chip seal;
* Started work on Oakdale Boulevard between 12th Ave. & Dubuque St.
Many of these topics had been languishing for years. I promised to champion these issues, and I have delivered. Meanwhile, Johnson County continues to provide outstanding day-to-day services.
There is much more to do, however, and I would like to be a part of it. My top campaign issues for a second term are:
1. Increased commitment to the Environment;
2. Positive updates to the County Land Use Plan;
3. Increased support for Human Services;
4. Improved Dust Control.
I hope I have earned your support as I pursue a second term. Serving as a County Supervisor is an incredible honor and privilege, and I truly appreciate the opportunities that have been given to me.
If you are interested in talking to me about my campaign or any County issues, the routine remains the same as the one listed below here every week
- feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com.
You can also check out my new website: http://rodsullivan.org/. I look forward to serving you."
Rod is one of the truly progressive voices in Johnson County. He was one of the founder's of FAIR! and has done a great job. I forgive him that he supports Barack Obama, although an Edwards/Obama ticket looks like a winner to me.
"you heard it here first: I am announcing today that I will seek reelection to a second term as County Supervisor.
There have been several significant accomplishments during my term in office. Since I joined the Board, Johnson County has:
* Passed a Human Rights Ordinance, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Passed a Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Joined the Sierra Club Cool Counties Initiative, the first County in Iowa to do so;
* Created a Trails Committee and for the first time created a line item for trails in the budget;
* Created a Commission for a Livable Community for Seniors;
* Instituted a highly successful Earned Income Tax Credit program;
* Dramatically increased funding for Shelter House;
* Begun a program for upgrading gravel roads to chip seal;
* Started work on Oakdale Boulevard between 12th Ave. & Dubuque St.
Many of these topics had been languishing for years. I promised to champion these issues, and I have delivered. Meanwhile, Johnson County continues to provide outstanding day-to-day services.
There is much more to do, however, and I would like to be a part of it. My top campaign issues for a second term are:
1. Increased commitment to the Environment;
2. Positive updates to the County Land Use Plan;
3. Increased support for Human Services;
4. Improved Dust Control.
I hope I have earned your support as I pursue a second term. Serving as a County Supervisor is an incredible honor and privilege, and I truly appreciate the opportunities that have been given to me.
If you are interested in talking to me about my campaign or any County issues, the routine remains the same as the one listed below here every week
- feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com.
You can also check out my new website: http://rodsullivan.org/. I look forward to serving you."
Rod is one of the truly progressive voices in Johnson County. He was one of the founder's of FAIR! and has done a great job. I forgive him that he supports Barack Obama, although an Edwards/Obama ticket looks like a winner to me.
Saturday, September 15
All the News That Fits Our Agenda
It was Elbert Hubbard who defined "Editor: a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed." This week, our local paper, the Press-Citizen, pointed out that placement of chaff counts too.
For instance, we have had over 30 assaults on women in the Iowa City community which, while there was a story about an information forum about it on the front page, it was under the fold. This means, if you walk down the street and look at the headlines in a newspaper box, you wouldn't have known this was more important than a UI group canceling a corn on the cob eat-off or Iowa State Bank (& Trust) changing its name.
Now the layout editor might saw it was matter of size than priority, but, when 1/4 of the top of the front page is given up to advertising, well, it makes it hard to report anything but feel good stories in that space.
Today, the same paper used 1/2 of the upper fold to ask the very important question "are you ready for the Iowa-Iowa State game?"--and then placed a story about women being afraid to walk home alone below it--albeit with the headline above the fold.
I understand that newspapers are going the way of the 8-track player, for the younger generation tends to get their news from Comedy Central than columnists. Be that as it may, for the rest of us that actually read papers for local news, it is often disappointing.
For instance, we have had over 30 assaults on women in the Iowa City community which, while there was a story about an information forum about it on the front page, it was under the fold. This means, if you walk down the street and look at the headlines in a newspaper box, you wouldn't have known this was more important than a UI group canceling a corn on the cob eat-off or Iowa State Bank (& Trust) changing its name.
Now the layout editor might saw it was matter of size than priority, but, when 1/4 of the top of the front page is given up to advertising, well, it makes it hard to report anything but feel good stories in that space.
Today, the same paper used 1/2 of the upper fold to ask the very important question "are you ready for the Iowa-Iowa State game?"--and then placed a story about women being afraid to walk home alone below it--albeit with the headline above the fold.
I understand that newspapers are going the way of the 8-track player, for the younger generation tends to get their news from Comedy Central than columnists. Be that as it may, for the rest of us that actually read papers for local news, it is often disappointing.
Friday, September 14
Filibuster for Peace--A Good Reason to Do It
Thanks to CR, check out this site: Filibuster for Peace
"We should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country." John Kerry, 1971
Petition the U.S. Senate to filibuster and end the war in Iraq.
We the undersigned call on each and every United States Senator to participate in a filibuster to end the war in Iraq. It only takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and prevent funding requests from the Bush administration from coming to debate or a vote. The Bush administration would then have to return with a funding request that is satisfactory to the 41. That bill should include funds to bring all U.S. forces home quickly and safely but no money to prosecute the war in Iraq. Pro-war Senators used this tactic twice in February to stop non-binding resolutions condemning the so-called "surge." If pro-war Senators can use this tactic, then anti-war Senators should use it also. Right now the filibuster is the only way to end the war in a veto-proof fashion. We call upon each and every Senator to join a filibuster effort to end the loss of life and save our country.
Go here and sign.
"We should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country." John Kerry, 1971
Petition the U.S. Senate to filibuster and end the war in Iraq.
We the undersigned call on each and every United States Senator to participate in a filibuster to end the war in Iraq. It only takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and prevent funding requests from the Bush administration from coming to debate or a vote. The Bush administration would then have to return with a funding request that is satisfactory to the 41. That bill should include funds to bring all U.S. forces home quickly and safely but no money to prosecute the war in Iraq. Pro-war Senators used this tactic twice in February to stop non-binding resolutions condemning the so-called "surge." If pro-war Senators can use this tactic, then anti-war Senators should use it also. Right now the filibuster is the only way to end the war in a veto-proof fashion. We call upon each and every Senator to join a filibuster effort to end the loss of life and save our country.
Go here and sign.
A Way Forward in the Senate
From FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Confusing "can't" and "won't."
Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.
The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.
As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):
Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.
This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."
This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:
If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war-legislation that has little chances of passing.
The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so.
The Democratic leadership may believe-rightly or wrongly-that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation-by confusing "can't" with "won't."
Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.
The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.
As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):
Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.
This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."
This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:
If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war-legislation that has little chances of passing.
The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so.
The Democratic leadership may believe-rightly or wrongly-that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation-by confusing "can't" with "won't."
21 Ordinance Dance Off
From the Daily Iowan
Thursday night's forum about the controversial 21-ordinance was as polarized as ever, with both camps firmly sticking to their positions and agreeing on very little.
The forum, which took place at the IMU, was hosted by the Roosevelt Institution, a national nonprofit student-run organization.
In favor of 21-only: UI senior Phonsavanh Lovan and UI clinical Professor of family medicine Rick Dobyns argued the ordinance is for the greater good, citing the high rate of local binge drinking.
Against: UI junior Atul Nakhasi and Bo-James owner Leah Cohen said the ban would just push the problem elsewhere, specifically to harder-to-patrol house parties.
"Parents do not know what goes on at these house parties," Cohen said, adding that ultimately, we are "throwing these kids to the wolves."
Nakhasi used Iowa City police understaffing as an argument against the ban.
"If we can't take care of the sexual assaults on campus, how are we going to take care of the students going into residential, less-supervised areas," he asked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dobyns argued for more nonalcoholic venues. He pointed out the 46-0 ratio between bars who serve alcohol and those who do not.
Dobyns said West Lafayette, Ind., the home of Purdue University, and Madison, Wis., the site of the University of Wisconsin, among others, have 21-ordinances, and they saw a decrease in binge drinking among students.
"The community needs to take the initiative to change the image and atmosphere of being a party school," Lovan said. "What's going to push [the UI] to have these nonalcoholic venues? We're going to keep waiting and waiting."
On Nov. 6, Iowa City voters will decide whether to allow people under 21 in the bars.
Both sides agreed that eliminating 18- and 19-year-olds from the bars could potentially create more danger for students venturing into the house-party world.
But each side had a different spin.
"Do I give my patients medicine that can produce negative effects? Yes," Dobyns said. "But they take the medicine for the longer and greater good."
Cohen took the opposite approach, saying the 21-ordinance would result in the "destruction of neighborhoods as well as more drug activity and assaults."
Thursday night's forum about the controversial 21-ordinance was as polarized as ever, with both camps firmly sticking to their positions and agreeing on very little.
The forum, which took place at the IMU, was hosted by the Roosevelt Institution, a national nonprofit student-run organization.
In favor of 21-only: UI senior Phonsavanh Lovan and UI clinical Professor of family medicine Rick Dobyns argued the ordinance is for the greater good, citing the high rate of local binge drinking.
Against: UI junior Atul Nakhasi and Bo-James owner Leah Cohen said the ban would just push the problem elsewhere, specifically to harder-to-patrol house parties.
"Parents do not know what goes on at these house parties," Cohen said, adding that ultimately, we are "throwing these kids to the wolves."
Nakhasi used Iowa City police understaffing as an argument against the ban.
"If we can't take care of the sexual assaults on campus, how are we going to take care of the students going into residential, less-supervised areas," he asked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Dobyns argued for more nonalcoholic venues. He pointed out the 46-0 ratio between bars who serve alcohol and those who do not.
Dobyns said West Lafayette, Ind., the home of Purdue University, and Madison, Wis., the site of the University of Wisconsin, among others, have 21-ordinances, and they saw a decrease in binge drinking among students.
"The community needs to take the initiative to change the image and atmosphere of being a party school," Lovan said. "What's going to push [the UI] to have these nonalcoholic venues? We're going to keep waiting and waiting."
On Nov. 6, Iowa City voters will decide whether to allow people under 21 in the bars.
Both sides agreed that eliminating 18- and 19-year-olds from the bars could potentially create more danger for students venturing into the house-party world.
But each side had a different spin.
"Do I give my patients medicine that can produce negative effects? Yes," Dobyns said. "But they take the medicine for the longer and greater good."
Cohen took the opposite approach, saying the 21-ordinance would result in the "destruction of neighborhoods as well as more drug activity and assaults."
Reactions from Bush's speech
In Iowa City, the big story may have been "Judge:Family Can Give Son's Semen to Fiancee"--but others had this story:
LA TIMES: BUSH REDEFINES 'VICTORY'
For more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: "Victory."
But this week, the word "victory" disappeared from the president's lexicon. It was replaced by a slightly more ambiguous goal: "Success."...
Bush's description of his war aims reflected two hard realities about his position on Iraq.
First, a large majority of the American public does not believe "victory" is possible. Dozens of opinion polls have found that fewer than 40% of voters think the war can be won.
Second, the men who are running the war - Army Gen David H Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker - made it clear this week that their immediate goals were more limited than "victory."...
Bush's target was not so much his opposition in the Democratic Party as the increasing number of war critics in his own Republican Party.
USA TODAY: BUSH BUYS MORE TIME TO MAKE MARK IN IRAQ
With this year's "surge" of US forces and this week's testimony by Gen David Petraeus, President Bush is getting what he wants on Iraq: More time.
Despite predictions after last year's election setbacks that he would have no choice but to reduce troop levels and limit the US mission, Bush continues to stake his presidency on the chance for a military and political turnaround in Iraq before he leaves office...
Bush's tone was determinedly positive. He used versions of the word "success" 10 times and of the word "progress" six times...
So far, the Democratic-controlled Congress hasn't been able to muster enough Republican votes to break a Senate filibuster and pass legislation that would force Bush to change course. Petraeus' unflappable demeanor and the reduction of violence in Anbar province and elsewhere has stanched the erosion of Republican support for now.
NEW YORK TIMES: MULTIPLE MESSAGES AND AUDIENCES
President Bush addressed three very different audiences (the American public, the Iraqi government and the insurgents) and he had to hope that each would hear a different message...
Mr Bush's speech was the culmination of a month long, highly orchestrated game plan to change the political debate in Washington and the country. But in the end, the speech once again raised the question of what America's mission in Iraq really is - and how long it will last.
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: NO EXIT, NO STRATEGY
Last night's speech could have been given any day in the last four years - and was delivered a half-dozen times already...
Once again, it is clear that President Bush refuses to recognize the truth of his failure in Iraq and envisions a military commitment that has no end...
The presidential candidates, as well, have a duty to take Iraq head-on. Democrats have started to talk in some detail about how they would end the war but the burden is not just on the war critics.
Republicans like Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain, who love to proclaim their support for the president and hide behind his troops, need to explain their vision as well.
WASHINGTON TIMES: BUSH TO START PULLOUT
President Bush last night said the US military's success in Iraq has made it possible to begin withdrawing some troops but noted that future withdrawals will be based on continued success and renewed his call on Iraqi leaders to take control of their country...
Mr Bush sought to cast the current moment in Iraq as a turning point in the war, and even in US history, and exhorted critics not to give up.
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL: THE LEAST BAD PLAN
President Bush's explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions.
First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of US. troops into Iraq has been a failure - because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible...
Mr Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops... that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments...
Mr Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order.
For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that US troops will "return on success" in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: "Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse."
TIME: A BUSH SPEECH THAT COULD BACKFIRE
President George W Bush's decision to give a major speech on Iraq in prime time Thursday night made sense on one level. The news has been relatively positive for a change, what with the stabilization in Anbar province and parts of Baghdad...
But Bush's trumpeting of what he called a "return on success" could end up backfiring. Bringing the war into America's living rooms is never a safe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bush himself still is not.
LA TIMES: BUSH REDEFINES 'VICTORY'
For more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: "Victory."
But this week, the word "victory" disappeared from the president's lexicon. It was replaced by a slightly more ambiguous goal: "Success."...
Bush's description of his war aims reflected two hard realities about his position on Iraq.
First, a large majority of the American public does not believe "victory" is possible. Dozens of opinion polls have found that fewer than 40% of voters think the war can be won.
Second, the men who are running the war - Army Gen David H Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker - made it clear this week that their immediate goals were more limited than "victory."...
Bush's target was not so much his opposition in the Democratic Party as the increasing number of war critics in his own Republican Party.
USA TODAY: BUSH BUYS MORE TIME TO MAKE MARK IN IRAQ
With this year's "surge" of US forces and this week's testimony by Gen David Petraeus, President Bush is getting what he wants on Iraq: More time.
Despite predictions after last year's election setbacks that he would have no choice but to reduce troop levels and limit the US mission, Bush continues to stake his presidency on the chance for a military and political turnaround in Iraq before he leaves office...
Bush's tone was determinedly positive. He used versions of the word "success" 10 times and of the word "progress" six times...
So far, the Democratic-controlled Congress hasn't been able to muster enough Republican votes to break a Senate filibuster and pass legislation that would force Bush to change course. Petraeus' unflappable demeanor and the reduction of violence in Anbar province and elsewhere has stanched the erosion of Republican support for now.
NEW YORK TIMES: MULTIPLE MESSAGES AND AUDIENCES
President Bush addressed three very different audiences (the American public, the Iraqi government and the insurgents) and he had to hope that each would hear a different message...
Mr Bush's speech was the culmination of a month long, highly orchestrated game plan to change the political debate in Washington and the country. But in the end, the speech once again raised the question of what America's mission in Iraq really is - and how long it will last.
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: NO EXIT, NO STRATEGY
Last night's speech could have been given any day in the last four years - and was delivered a half-dozen times already...
Once again, it is clear that President Bush refuses to recognize the truth of his failure in Iraq and envisions a military commitment that has no end...
The presidential candidates, as well, have a duty to take Iraq head-on. Democrats have started to talk in some detail about how they would end the war but the burden is not just on the war critics.
Republicans like Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain, who love to proclaim their support for the president and hide behind his troops, need to explain their vision as well.
WASHINGTON TIMES: BUSH TO START PULLOUT
President Bush last night said the US military's success in Iraq has made it possible to begin withdrawing some troops but noted that future withdrawals will be based on continued success and renewed his call on Iraqi leaders to take control of their country...
Mr Bush sought to cast the current moment in Iraq as a turning point in the war, and even in US history, and exhorted critics not to give up.
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL: THE LEAST BAD PLAN
President Bush's explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions.
First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of US. troops into Iraq has been a failure - because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible...
Mr Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops... that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments...
Mr Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order.
For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that US troops will "return on success" in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: "Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse."
TIME: A BUSH SPEECH THAT COULD BACKFIRE
President George W Bush's decision to give a major speech on Iraq in prime time Thursday night made sense on one level. The news has been relatively positive for a change, what with the stabilization in Anbar province and parts of Baghdad...
But Bush's trumpeting of what he called a "return on success" could end up backfiring. Bringing the war into America's living rooms is never a safe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bush himself still is not.
What Our Leader Can Learn From Japan's
"The people need a leader whom they can support and trust."
* Japanese Prime Minister SHINZO ABE announcing his resignation
* Japanese Prime Minister SHINZO ABE announcing his resignation
Thursday, September 13
Poll: Congress and Bush Both in the Dumper
Only a third of the public is satisfied with the job President Bush is doing and even fewer are pleased with Congress, according to a poll by The Associated Press and Ipsos released Thursday.
With the clash between Bush and congressional Democrats over Iraq continuing to dominate the news, 33 percent said they approve of Bush's performance. That essentially matched his all-time low of 32 percent measured several times in the AP-Ipsos survey, a level that has barely changed since late last year.
Bush's approval on various issues ranged from 40 percent on foreign policy and terrorism to 33 percent on Iraq. But he wasn't the only one whose popularity was in the doldrums.
Congress' 26 percent approval was also about the same as its low point since Democrats took control this year, which was 24 percent in July.
With the clash between Bush and congressional Democrats over Iraq continuing to dominate the news, 33 percent said they approve of Bush's performance. That essentially matched his all-time low of 32 percent measured several times in the AP-Ipsos survey, a level that has barely changed since late last year.
Bush's approval on various issues ranged from 40 percent on foreign policy and terrorism to 33 percent on Iraq. But he wasn't the only one whose popularity was in the doldrums.
Congress' 26 percent approval was also about the same as its low point since Democrats took control this year, which was 24 percent in July.
Obama Says Congress Won't Challenge Bush on Iraq
From the AP
Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.
Obama, on the second day of a trip to Iowa, conceded that Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war or even to tie continued funding to a timetable for withdrawing troops.
The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact.
"You have to at least give people a one-year break for every year served in Iraq," Obama said. "At least that would put a ceiling on how many troops could be sent there at any given time."
In his speech before about 300 people at a park in this eastern Iowa town of 6,100 people, Obama focused on his plan to begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately and complete the withdrawal by the end of next year.
Obama spoke on the same day Bush was scheduled to address the nation, seeking support of his plan to maintain troop levels in Iraq until next summer, then withdraw about 30,000 troops if conditions are favorable. Bush has said he's basing his plan on the advise of the nation's military leaders.
Speaking with reporters, Obama dismissed Bush administration claims that an increase in troops has brought progress to Iraq.
"After an additional 30,000 troops and enormous sacrifice, we are back to where we were in June 2006," said Obama. "We have not made progress politically."
Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.
Obama, on the second day of a trip to Iowa, conceded that Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war or even to tie continued funding to a timetable for withdrawing troops.
The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact.
"You have to at least give people a one-year break for every year served in Iraq," Obama said. "At least that would put a ceiling on how many troops could be sent there at any given time."
In his speech before about 300 people at a park in this eastern Iowa town of 6,100 people, Obama focused on his plan to begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately and complete the withdrawal by the end of next year.
Obama spoke on the same day Bush was scheduled to address the nation, seeking support of his plan to maintain troop levels in Iraq until next summer, then withdraw about 30,000 troops if conditions are favorable. Bush has said he's basing his plan on the advise of the nation's military leaders.
Speaking with reporters, Obama dismissed Bush administration claims that an increase in troops has brought progress to Iraq.
"After an additional 30,000 troops and enormous sacrifice, we are back to where we were in June 2006," said Obama. "We have not made progress politically."
As Vermont Goes So Goes the Nation?
From the Christian Science Monitor
When historians finally take stock, Vermont may look like the mouse that roared – the tiny state that brought the nation's mighty auto industry to heel by requiring cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases.
This is one scenario that could unfold following a federal judge's ruling Wednesday, which upheld a Vermont law patterned after California's mandate that the carbon-dioxide emissions of cars sold in the state must be slashed 30 percent by 2016.
The judge's finding – that federal fuel-economy laws are not in conflict with state emissions laws – is particularly significant, coming on the heels of a US Supreme Court decision in April. That ruling found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, legal experts say.
On the one hand, Wednesday's decision strengthens the hand of states that want to take action against global warming. But in the longer term, the impact from the ruling could lead to one nationwide standard, which is already expected by many.
In addition to the 12 states with California-style laws on the books, another six are close to acting.
The ruling this week could start dominoes falling by:
• Prompting the US EPA to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act allowing it, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing greenhouse-gas requirements for cars sold within their borders.
• Causing six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – to proceed with their own similar emissions requirements. Altogether, the 18 states that have such laws – or are leaning toward them – make up about half the US auto market.
• Spurring Congress to reconsider the new fuel-efficiency standards it is currently weighing, which are not as demanding as Vermont's, and mandate a tougher federal requirement that would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
• Causing federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry – one in California, the other in Rhode Island – to dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant, according to environmental lawyers.
The efforts by the 12 states with laws in place could cut emissions by 100 million tons annually. By comparison, however, US cars and light trucks emit 1.5 billion tons annually.
When historians finally take stock, Vermont may look like the mouse that roared – the tiny state that brought the nation's mighty auto industry to heel by requiring cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases.
This is one scenario that could unfold following a federal judge's ruling Wednesday, which upheld a Vermont law patterned after California's mandate that the carbon-dioxide emissions of cars sold in the state must be slashed 30 percent by 2016.
The judge's finding – that federal fuel-economy laws are not in conflict with state emissions laws – is particularly significant, coming on the heels of a US Supreme Court decision in April. That ruling found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, legal experts say.
On the one hand, Wednesday's decision strengthens the hand of states that want to take action against global warming. But in the longer term, the impact from the ruling could lead to one nationwide standard, which is already expected by many.
In addition to the 12 states with California-style laws on the books, another six are close to acting.
The ruling this week could start dominoes falling by:
• Prompting the US EPA to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act allowing it, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing greenhouse-gas requirements for cars sold within their borders.
• Causing six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – to proceed with their own similar emissions requirements. Altogether, the 18 states that have such laws – or are leaning toward them – make up about half the US auto market.
• Spurring Congress to reconsider the new fuel-efficiency standards it is currently weighing, which are not as demanding as Vermont's, and mandate a tougher federal requirement that would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
• Causing federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry – one in California, the other in Rhode Island – to dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant, according to environmental lawyers.
The efforts by the 12 states with laws in place could cut emissions by 100 million tons annually. By comparison, however, US cars and light trucks emit 1.5 billion tons annually.
Local Politics: Mid-American Agreement Being Pushed Through?
Are Iowa City politics pushing a tentative franchise agreement with Mid-American Energy?
The timing of this agreement and the city council primary in mid-October causes speculation that without this being a done deal, at-large city council candidate Terry Smith, who is in upper management with MidAmerican, would be in a "rock and a hard place" position. Clearly, if the franchise is not approved before the new year, Smith would have to recuse himself from voting on it. However, if it is approved, he would still be in a position to vote on projects that directly benefit his company, including easement agreements, commercial and residential housing developments.
The City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to set public hearings on Oct. 2 to consider ordinances granting MidAmerican electric and natural gas franchises. The majority of the council would then have to vote in favor of the ordinances for the franchises to take effect. A public hearing is required under Iowa Code.
The deal spans 10 years, including the option for a ten year and five year renewal.
The franchises would be for a period of 10 years, with options for 10-year and five-year renewals for a total of 25 years.
Iowa law prohibits another municipal power vote for four years following an unsuccessful referendum. Also, a city-run system cannot be considered while a franchise agreement is in effect.
The timing of this agreement and the city council primary in mid-October causes speculation that without this being a done deal, at-large city council candidate Terry Smith, who is in upper management with MidAmerican, would be in a "rock and a hard place" position. Clearly, if the franchise is not approved before the new year, Smith would have to recuse himself from voting on it. However, if it is approved, he would still be in a position to vote on projects that directly benefit his company, including easement agreements, commercial and residential housing developments.
The City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to set public hearings on Oct. 2 to consider ordinances granting MidAmerican electric and natural gas franchises. The majority of the council would then have to vote in favor of the ordinances for the franchises to take effect. A public hearing is required under Iowa Code.
The deal spans 10 years, including the option for a ten year and five year renewal.
The franchises would be for a period of 10 years, with options for 10-year and five-year renewals for a total of 25 years.
Iowa law prohibits another municipal power vote for four years following an unsuccessful referendum. Also, a city-run system cannot be considered while a franchise agreement is in effect.
Al "Be Seeing You" in Iowa
Outgoing US AG "You can call me" Al Gonzales is making his first visit(and last in his current capacity) to Iowa today.
The Gazette reports from Des Moines:
"It's a great privilege to serve in this position and when you serve in these positions obviously sometimes there are tough decisions, there are tough times that occur. But I think we did a lot of good things," he said.
Gonzales said "I think we've done a lot of good things in protecting our country from another terrorist attack and I think we've done a lot of good things ensuring that our neighborhoods are safer from violent gangs."
Asked if he had any regrets as he steps down, Gonzales said "We're all human and all of us make mistakes. The thing that's important is to identify when those mistakes are made, acknowledge the mistakes, correct the mistakes and then you
move on."
Today's stopover was Gonzales first trip to Iowa.
The Gazette reports from Des Moines:
"It's a great privilege to serve in this position and when you serve in these positions obviously sometimes there are tough decisions, there are tough times that occur. But I think we did a lot of good things," he said.
Gonzales said "I think we've done a lot of good things in protecting our country from another terrorist attack and I think we've done a lot of good things ensuring that our neighborhoods are safer from violent gangs."
Asked if he had any regrets as he steps down, Gonzales said "We're all human and all of us make mistakes. The thing that's important is to identify when those mistakes are made, acknowledge the mistakes, correct the mistakes and then you
move on."
Today's stopover was Gonzales first trip to Iowa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)