"I think the consequences could be very dangerous," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "Fox News Sunday." "I'm convinced at this point in time that ... making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."
Obama has argued that a drawdown in Iraq is necessary to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The Illinois Democrat was in Afghanistan on Sunday and reiterated his call to add up to 15,000 U.S. troops there.
Read More »How many more of these will it take before we finally dispense with the idea that John McCain is some sort of foreign policy genius who is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief? Today on “Good Morning America,” John McCain was asked whether he agreed with Barack Obama when he says the situation in Afghanistan is “precarious and urgent.” In predictable fashion, McCain downplays the significance of the deteriorating security situation there. In perhaps less predictable fashion, he magically redraws the borders of two Middle Eastern countries
We have a lot of work to do. It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.
I doubt anyone here really needs me to do this, but here we go:
As you can clearly see, there is no common border between Iraq and Pakistan. Just another gaffe to add to the pile.
Running for president is a perilous endeavor. Candidates make mistakes.
And Barack Obama is making a serious mistake this weekend.
As he tours Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois says he is “more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking.”
That would be good if it were the case.
Unfortunately, Obama is busy making promises.
After meeting with the Democratic presidential candidate inside the US base in Jalalabad, Afghan warlord turned provincial governor Gul Agha Sherzai told reporters, “Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector.”
Translation: Obama is not listening. He is making commitments.
Specific commitments.
Despite the fact that there are more foreign troops in Afghanistan today than at any time since the 2001 invasion — roughly 60,000 total, including 36,000 Americans - Obama is proposing to dispatch two more US combat divisions (comprising more than 7,000 soldiers) to Afghanistan. That will give the United States even greater responsibility for a technically NATO-led ooccupation.
The Democrat’s send-more-troops proposal is precisely the same as that of Republican John McCain.
And it is precisely wrong.
Read More »NOW has a website to rate the most outrageous moments of sexism from the 2008 election coverage. Hillary and Michelle were both victims of sexism. You can go to their website and rate them on their Mysoginy Meter.
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/index.html
July 17, 2008 6:13 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports from Capitol Hill: The McCain campaign criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's hearing record on Capitol Hill led us to put the shoe on the other foot.
It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama's one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee's six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.
Of the three Afghanistan-related hearings that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has had over the past 22 months, Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, has only attended one.
Meanwhile Obama attended the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan in March, 2007, although he used the opportunity to ask Gen. James L. Jones, then the commander of NATO, about Pakistan.
Jones also came before the Senate Armed Services Committee that week. But McCain was a no-show.
The findings are surprising given the fact that the McCain campaign loudly criticized Obama this week for failing to schedule any hearings on Afghanistan in the last year and a half. Obama chairs the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of military operations in Afghanistan.
Read More »May 24, 2007
(The Politico) President Bush said today if the Iraqi government were to ask the United States to leave Iraq, he would grant the request.
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,’’ the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave."
Last week, The Politico reported that some Republican leaders in Congress held the same view.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/politics/politico/thecrypt/main2848888.shtml
— Ryan Grim
The Iraqi Prime Minister asked for withdrawal timetables on July 9th, 2008. They want us out. Will Bush do it?
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Washington Post
Excerpts
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.
I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.
Read More »Members of Vice President's Dick Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official on the health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said today.
In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney's office edited out six pages from the testimony of Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last October.
Several media outlets, including The Washington Post, reported at the time that Gerberding had planned to say that "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern," among other passages.
Boxer said the administration feared that Gerberding's testimony would force it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The White House has opposed mandatory limits and insisted that voluntary measures and increased research are the best way to address the problem.
Link to story: http://www.truthout.org/article/cheney-aides-altered-congressional-testimony
Impeach, impeach, impeach. Congress approval rating at 9%...maybe they will have hearings....Pelosi and Reid must Go!
While surfing the net on 'Stumble', I came across an interview with President Bush on Irish television that caused a bit of a storm in 2004. The interview conducted by the tenacious Carol Coleman of Radio Television Ireland was not aired on American television, and Bush's press officers apparently complained vociferously about the rigorous questioning.
The video shows Bush at the absolute peak of his arrogance -- convinced of his own rhetoric about Iraq, flooded with confidence from international subservience to American power, and high off a crushing military victory that reinforced his childish fantasies of American power and preeminence.
The problem was, Coleman was having none of it, and what transpired was a unique insight into the warped brain of the least respected and most hated president in the history of the United States.
Read More »(CNN) -- Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain's qualifications Sunday.
The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.
The dust-up began with Clark's appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.
In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."
When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain's experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
In a statement released by the McCain campaign Sunday afternoon, retired Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith criticized Clark's comment.
"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," Smith said.
"If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."
***UPDATE: On CNN, the Obama campaign has rejected the comments by Wesley Clark.
His description of his upbringing and work history are accurate. He describes the "strong values" he says he learned from his mother and her parents. But when Obama discusses his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out some important context.
The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate. Read More »
-----Original Message-----
From: Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite [mailto:fl05ima.pub@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:11 PM
To: pcmoore28
Subject: Responding to your message
Dear PC:
Thank you for expressing your opinion of President George W. Bush. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As you may know, the United States Constitution sets forth the general principles that control the impeachment process. The power to impeach is vested in the House of Representatives, while the Senate has the power to try impeachments. Impeachment proceedings in the House may proceed if a Member declares a charge of impeachment or introduces a memorial listing of the charges under oath.
A President may be removed from office upon impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. To this date, no Member has initiated impeachment proceedings. This is likely because the President is not under any criminal investigation and has not been charged with a crime.
I respect your views on the Iraq War; however the reasons behind the war in Iraq were fully explored in the 2004 election. The American people chose to return President Bush to office with a historic number of votes cast and clearly decided that the liberation of Iraq was proper. I thank you for your input on this matter.
Sincerely,
Ginny Brown-Waite
Member of Congress
6/19/08 (www.fair.org)
NBC's Meet the Press anchor and Washington bureau chief Tim Russert died of a heart attack on June 13. The outpouring from media and political elites only underscored Russert's status as one of most important figures in mainstream journalism. But amidst all of the accolades, critical assessments about Russert's record were scarce.
It would be difficult to imagine anyone more admired by fellow journalists. "He was the preeminent political journalist in America," declared pundit Al Hunt (6/15/08). "He was an American character right from Mark Twain," offered NBC colleague Chris Matthews (6/15/08). "He had an authority and insight in covering politics that the rest of us could only aspire to," remarked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace (6/15/08).
Many of the tributes celebrated Russert's preparation for his Sunday morning interviews, the kind of performances that earned Russert his reputation as a particularly tough interviewer. "Tim Russert always did his homework," explained NBC's David Gregory. "He was always prepared for interviews." NBC producer Betsy Fischer agreed (6/15/08): "He would spend all week preparing for this show, reading everything."
Aside from the fact that this is somewhat unusual praise--shouldn't all journalists prepare for interviews?--
Speaking before Houston oilmen yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) declared his support for lifting the 25-year federal moratorium on offshore drilling. He justified this reversal of his longstanding opposition by explaining that it’s now “safe”:
As for offshore drilling, it’s safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston.
McCain is repeating a popular myth. As the hackish Newsweek and Washington Post editor Robert Samuelson wrote on April 30, 2008, “Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America’s Future Energy, an advocacy group.” In the weeks following Katrina and Rita’s one-two strike in the summer of 2005, the Bush administration claimed there was “only minor sheening” from offshore oil spills.
In fact, the clear satellite evidence of major spills was borne out by final reports. In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: “113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter.”
Pipeline damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (MMS 2007). Click to enlarge.
Unsurprisingly, this devastation caused significant spillage, according to the official report prepared for the MMS by a Norwegian firm:
Read More »Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a “major spill.” [MMS, 5/1/06]
Congressional leaders have reached an accord with the White House on the update to a controversial surveillance law that essentially legalizes the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program and seems likely to let off the hook the phone companies that facilitated it.
Under the bipartisan measure, a court could dismiss a suit if there is written certification that the White House asked a phone company to participate in the warrantless surveillance program Bush began shortly after the September 11 attacks and assured the company it was legal.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has been among the most vocal critics of the administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution, called the latest deal "a capitulation."
Read More »Now.
Not to delay.
Not to cower.
Not to bend to the will of Nancy Pelosi.
But to stand up tall for the Constitution as head of the House Judiciary Committee.
By introducing 35 thoughtful and detailed articles of impeachment against President Bush on June 9, Dennis Kucinich has put Conyers on the spot.
It’s “to be, or not to be” time.
And Conyers knows what’s right. He himself introduced a bill to explore grounds for impeaching Bush-but that was in 2005, before the Democrats came to power.
Lewis Lapham of Harper’s interviewed Conyers and wrote about his brave and quixotic stance back then. Why was Conyers for impeachment then? ” ‘To take away the excuse,’ he said, ‘that we didn’t know.’ So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, ‘Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?’ when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that ‘somehow it escaped our notice’ that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.”
So why is Conyers doing nothing now, when, as the Supreme Court ruled again this week, the President has essentially set himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law?
Read More »
April 2, 2008
SFist reports that the enterprising Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is looking to rename Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility to the “George W. Bush Sewage Plant.” The group explains it seeks to “select a fitting monument to this president’s work” and to “honor George W Bush for his eight years of honorable public service.” “No other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time,” the group notes.
Posts