Wednesday, January 24, 2007

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
As Prepared For Delivery

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Thank you very much. Tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker.

In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations.

Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight -- and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate -- and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity ... to spend the people's money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

We are not the first to come here with government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth -- in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ... so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move -- and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise.

Next week, I will deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the Federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 -- and met that goal 3 years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the Federal deficit within the next 5 years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the Federal Government, and balance the Federal budget.

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process ... expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress ... and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience -- and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that
duty -- and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security.

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act -- preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards ... without taking control from local communities ... and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools ... and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better. We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the States that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive Federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing Federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our Nation's Governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts ... help small businesses through Association Health Plans ... reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology ... encourage price transparency ... and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol -- and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in -- and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers -- so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country -- without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate -- so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power -- by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years -- thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of 3/4 of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- this is nearly 5 times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our Federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the Federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the Federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well -- to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled -- that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free-flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented -- but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean . For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past 5 years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ... instruct with bullets and bombs ... and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." And Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East ... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the 6th year since our Nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this Government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security ... we must.

In the last 2 years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections -- choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world ... and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province -- where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them -- we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation -- to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens ... to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq ... to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life ... to hold local elections ... and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this Chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq -- because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by
Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11 and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united -- in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq -- and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field -- and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military -- so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next 5 years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle -- because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations -- and we are working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia , and South Korea, we are pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. And we will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa -- and because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in 3 short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over 5 years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth -- or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American.

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born -- and in just 5 years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I've ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." We are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark.

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks ... pulled the man into a space between the rails ... and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. Wesley says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire -- and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs -- yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong ... our cause in the world is right ... and tonight that cause goes on.

Thank you.


Read More...

The State of Bush's Psyche

Huffington Post
Joseph A. Palermo
The State of Bush's Psyche

On television at least, the mise en scène of the State of the Union was far easier on the eyes with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sitting behind the President, instead of the glowering visage of the corpulent Denny Hastert. (Unfortunately, we still had to endure Dick Cheney's twisted sneer.)

Bush's P.R. people love to turn up the volume of "Hail to the Chief" to deafening levels. Yet no amount of jingoistic ritual can rescue this president from the damning judgment of a war-weary citizenry.

In his sixth State of the Union address, Bush shot to new heights what C. Wright Mills called "crackpot realism." Purveyors of "crackpot realism" draw seemingly logical, even commonsensical conclusions based on fallacious and delusional premises.

In Bush's case, he draws absurd conclusions based on no "premises" at all.

"To win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy."

This is a ghoulish line for Bush to be taking the day after 88 innocent Iraqis were blown to bits in a Baghdad market.

And two days ago, Iraqi insurgents wearing American uniforms and driving in seven or eight new GMC sport utility vehicles, identical to those that American personnel use, passed through a half dozen checkpoints on their way to Karbala. There they sped up to the U.S. military headquarters, killed five American soldiers and kidnapped two. The abandoned trucks were discovered later in little towns outside of Karbala.

The other day, the body of a 75-year-old man was found wrapped in a rug after being thrown from a five-story building, someone had taken a power drill to the back of his head, which is a common tool of "revenge" in Iraq these days.

American troops are going to "clear and secure neighborhoods" in Baghdad, and will be "chasing down the terrorists and insurgents." Who are they going to be "clearing" and who are the going to be "holding?"

This is definitive "crackpot realism."

The next time Bush addresses the nation in prime time it might be to announce he has just ordered the bombing of Iran. And he will have a litany of "realistic" rationales for leading the nation down this ruinous course, the consequences of which the world will be saddled with for years to come.

Turning the Persian Gulf region into a smoldering wasteland is the "rational" thing to do, he'll assure us, because not to do so would mean the mullahs eventually getting an atomic bomb, or sponsoring terrorism, or undermining our great cause in Iraq. And tearing apart Iran's infrastructure is the only "realistic" choice because it will make all of these scary things magically go away. (Just as overthrowing Saddam Hussein reduced the threat of terrorism in the world.) Crackpot realism, like the belief in Armageddon, is magical thinking. It's fine when a four-year-old does it; no one is likely to get hurt. But when the President of the United States does it -- all of our asses are up for grabs.


Read More...

Bush Fails to Mention America's 1.6 Million New Veterans in SOTU

Huffington Post
Paul Rieckhoff
Bush Fails to Mention America's 1.6 Million New Veterans in SOTU

Tonight President Bush once again failed to demonstrate a real commitment to the 1.6 million new American veterans who have been created under his watch. For the second year in a row, the President in his State of the Union address chose to mention the troops only as a prop for his failing policies and ignored the nation's new veterans entirely.

Over the past four years, this country has watched its men and women in uniform answer the call to duty over and over again, yet somehow today these new veterans are still faced with a drastically under-funded Veterans' Administration and an outdated GI Bill. It's time to reward our troops' sacrifices with more than just bureaucratic hassles and token gestures.

Mr. President, this nation's new veterans and this new Congress will together rewrite the book on our approach to veterans' services, and we'll do it with or without your help. Tonight you demonstrated your willingness to send more troops into harms way. A demonstration of your commitment to preserving this nation's promise to its veterans is long overdue.

In the coming weeks, the nation's first and largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group, IAVA, will release a legislative agenda that, if adopted, will go a long way towards addressing the many unacceptable problems facing our troops as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Supporting our troops and veterans is not only our national obligation, it is also critical to maintaining a strong military and ensuring our national security. Shortages of armor, troops and equipment have hampered progress in theatre. Poor treatment of veterans and an inadequate G.I. Bill make recruitment more difficult. The use of National Guardsmen and Reservists leaves fewer troops at home for domestic emergencies. It is time that these force-readiness issues are treated with the urgency they deserve. And it is time that this nation, and our elected officials, renew the commitment to our troops and veterans.


Read More...

McCain Sleeps Through Parts Of State Of The Union

McCain Sleeps Through Parts Of State Of The Union

Click Here To Watch

Read More...

"God Bless"

Huffington Post
Harry Shearer
"God Bless"

Was this the first State of the Union address in which George W. Bush didn't finish that phrase (written by Irving Berlin)? Maybe it's because, in George Bush's America, the "cause" that he said, in his peroration, "goes on", did not include the fate or future of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

In the Dem response, James Webb put the future of New Orleans up near the top of his remarks. Were any members of the Congressional Dem leadership listening?

Read More...

Senators seek ban on "sweatshop" imports

Reuters
Senators seek ban on "sweatshop" imports
By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six U.S. senators introduced a bill on Tuesday to stop imports of clothing and other goods made under "sweatshop" conditions, as part of a bigger effort to refashion trade policy to boost workers' rights.

"This ... is legislation we will push very hard this year," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and leading critic of President George W. Bush's handling of trade.

Dorgan identified China as the primary target of the bill, but said it was aimed at barring imports from any foreign company where workers are mistreated.

"In this bill, a sweatshop factory is one where workers are abused in violation of that country's labor laws," Dorgan said.

The bill empowers the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to blocks imports from a foreign factory if it determines they are being made under sweatshop conditions.

Importers who violate the ban would face a $10,000 fine for each separate offense and could also be sued by their competitors for damages, Dorgan said.

"The failure by other countries, such as China, to adequately enforce minimum labor laws effectively grants their producers a substantial subsidy over those companies and countries that treat their workers fairly," the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, a textile industry group, said in a statement supporting the bill.

A similar bill failed to become law last year, but the new version could fare better now that Democrats control Congress.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican whose state is a major textile producer, said he was co-sponsoring the legislation to help lift labor standards around the world and bring more fairness to trade.

"If you're a business person engaged in exploiting people to get a better market share, I hope you get fined, I hope you get sued. That's not the way to build up an economy. That's not the way to have global trade," Graham said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said the bill was part of a bigger fight to change U.S. trade policy, which began in 2005 with an effort to block approval of a free trade pact with Central American countries.

"In the last Congress, we changed the debate on trade. In this Congress we're going to change the face of trade," Brown said. Current U.S. trade policy "too often allows for the inhumane exploitation of workers," he said.




Read More...

Senate ready to confront Bush over Iraq

Reuters
U.S. Democrats ready to confront Bush over Iraq
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. senators were ready to confront President George W. Bush over his decision to add American troops in Iraq, according to Democrats who said on Tuesday they were close to a single bipartisan resolution denouncing the strategy.

"My guess is there will be an overwhelming rejection, on the record, of ... 'stay the course' with 20,000 more," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat.

The committee was to consider a resolution by Biden and other senators on Wednesday that rejects Bush's decision to add 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Such a resolution would not be binding, but would express the Senate's opinion and would come to a vote next week, said Assistant Democratic leader Richard Durbin.

The unanswered question was whether Biden's resolution could be blended with a similar one offered by Warner -- a leading Republican voice on national security issues who has broken ranks with Bush over the Iraq war.

Both proposals already have co-sponsors in both parties. But Democrats, with 51 senators to the Republicans' 49, seemed drawn to the idea of developing a consensus proposal with Warner that would attract more Republican votes.

The proposals by Biden and Warner were "very very close," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We are working to see if we can meld them."

Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a longtime supporter of the Iraq war, began expressing concerns about it last autumn.

"There's a lot in ours that is not in the other (proposal)," Warner said, citing an emphasis on keeping U.S. troops out of sectarian conflict.

Democrats had at least 45 or 46 votes for a resolution opposing Bush's troop increase, Durbin said. Reid has said he hopes to get a dozen Republicans on sides.

But an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, warned against passing a resolution disapproving the troop increase, after Bush's choice to take command of the Iraq war -- Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus -- said that doing so would encourage the enemy in Iraq.

"I understand that the trains are on the legislative track and they're heading toward a collision, but I want to urge my colleagues to ... put the brakes on," Lieberman said during an Armed Services Committee hearing on Petraeus' nomination.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have said they will pass a similar resolution but are waiting for the Senate to move first.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan)




Read More...

Libby was "set up" to protect Rove: lawyer

Reuters
Libby was "set up" to protect Rove: lawyer
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former vice presidential aide charged with perjury was "set up" by the White House to protect political strategist Karl Rove during a CIA leak investigation, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby was so worried he would be blamed for blowing the cover of a CIA operative that he asked his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to intervene on his behalf, defense lawyer Theodore Wells told the jury at the beginning of Libby's perjury trial.

"He was concerned about being set up," Wells said. "He was concerned about being the scapegoat for this entire Valerie Wilson controversy."

Libby resigned as Cheney's chief of staff when he was charged with lying to investigators who sought to determine who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. The leak occurred after Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to build its case for invading Iraq.

Special Prosector Patrick Fitzgerald said Libby told investigators he only passed along rumors about the operative, who was known by her maiden name Valerie Plame, to reporters.

But Libby had actually sought out information from other government officials and then shared that information with reporters as fact, Fitzgerald said.

"The defendant lied to the FBI and stole the truth from the grand jury," Fitzgerald said.

Wells said Libby couldn't possibly remember the details of conversations he had about Plame months after they happened because he was preoccupied with national security matters.

BLAMING THE WHITE HOUSE

But Wells made clear he also intends to point a finger at the White House officials outside of Cheney's office, though Wells did not say who they were.

In his opening statement, Wells displayed a note written by Cheney that said he was "not going to protect one staffer (and) sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Libby "was an important staffer, but Karl Rove was the lifeblood of the Republican Party," Wells said.

Cheney is among the prominent government officials and journalists expected to testify in the six-week case, which will examine the White House and the Washington press corps as the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003.

One of those officials, former No. 3 State Department official Marc Grossman, testified that Libby asked him to look into a trip taken by Joseph Wilson to explore whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

Grossman said he was surprised to find out that Plame had organized the trip.

"It didn't seem right or appropriate that a spouse would be organizing their spouse's trip," Grossman said. He said he informed Libby about Plame and the trip a few days later, though he considered the whole affair to be "of less than zero importance."

Rove also discussed Plame's identity with reporters before it was publicly known. He faced prolonged scrutiny in the case before he was cleared by Fitzgerald last June.

No one has been charged with blowing Plame's cover.




Read More...

Democrat Webb, with son in Iraq, wants new direction

Reuters
Democrat Webb, with son in Iraq, wants new direction
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a former Marine with a son in Iraq, called on President George W. Bush on Tuesday to change course in the unpopular war so American troops can begin to come home.

"If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way," Webb said in his party's response to the president's annual State of the Union Address to the Congress.

Webb emerged as a political hero last November when he upset Republican Sen. George Allen in Virginia to give Democrats narrow control of the Senate and complete the party's sweep to power on Capitol Hill. The take-over was fueled largely by discontent with the unpopular Iraq war.

"We need a new direction. ... An immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq," Webb said.

A former Republican who served as President Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, Webb enhanced his reputation as someone willing to stand up to power in an icy exchange with Bush shortly after the election at a White House reception.

In an encounter that has been widely disseminated, Bush asked Webb: "How's your boy?"

"I'd like them to get them out of Iraq," Webb replied, sounding his campaign refrain and telling Bush that his son's well-being is "between me and my boy."

In honor of his son, Webb wore combat boots while campaigning in traditionally Republican Virginia for the Senate. In rebutting Bush on Tuesday night, he briefly mentioned the 24-year-old, Jimmy Webb, serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

With Bush bucking public opinion and much of the Democratic-led Congress in deciding to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, the deployment of Webb's unit was recently extended 60 days.

"This country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years," the senator said. "Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary."




Read More...

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Hosting a State of the Union Party: Drinking Games and What to Do While You Suffer through the Speech

Huffington Post
Kathleen Wright

Hosting a State of the Union Party: Drinking Games and What to Do While You Suffer through the Speech

So, if you are going to watch the speech this Tuesday, you might as well make it interesting, or at least less painful. Invite over some friends so you can commiserate together...

What to Serve:

* Bologna sandwiches: sandwiches that are, like the president, full of baloney. On white bread, of course
* Alcohol...you're gonna need it
* Pretzels, to remind us that an even greater evil--Cheney--is just another choke-on-a-pretzel away
* Freedom fries
* Chips and dip. Because who doesn't love chips and dip?
* Order some pizzas and tip the delivery person really well. Consider it doing your part until the minimum wage is (finally!) officially raised. You can also use the pizza to create a pie chart of tax cuts, but make sure you get the portion that represents the breaks for the rich, unless you are on a diet

Phrases to Drink to:

* "As the Iraqis step up, we will step down"
* Any presidential mispronunciations (but only if you have a really good tolerance for alcohol)
* Any time Bush insinuates that you or someone of your ilk is aiding terrorists because you question his authority
* Any time Bush insinuates that you or someone of your ilk is demoralizing our troops and/or putting them in danger because you question his authority
* Mentions of all that we should be doing and will be doing in Darfur (Note: this phrase is for recovering alcoholics only, to ensure that they will not have to drink)

I Spy:

* Republicans currently under indictment
* Republicans soon to be under indictment
* Dems clearly unhappy to be forced to clap for the president
* Bush making an unintentional smirk at a wholly inappropriate moment
* Blank stares
* A foreign policy announcement that is basically another no-bid opportunity for Halliburton and other major GOP donors
* Hillary Clinton deciding whether or not she should clap at phrases related to Iraq (and the pollster next to her letting her know if it is okay to clap)
* An African-American Republican (well, there are a few...)
* A Democrat not running for pres in 2008 (well, there are a few...)

Party Favors:

* Maps of the world so you can identify all the other countries with which the Bush administration would like to go to war
* Darts that you can throw at the map so that you can get a better understanding of the Bush admin's foreign policy decision-making skills
* Flowers: the ones with which we were told we would be greeted with as liberators
* Enough cash to buy a Congressional rep (also known as "your tax cuts at work")
* A cab ride: if you really did drink to any of the sets of phrases listed above, you are not going to want your guests to drive home
* A bathing suit if you live in the North and a pair of snow boots if you live on the West Coast, so that your guests can be better prepared for global warming-related weather changes
* Electricity and potable water if you live in New Orleans and are in one of the many homes still without

And if you start getting really depressed as you watch the speech, just remember that, if my calculations are correct, it is only 725 days until we inaugurate the next president. Party at my house!

Read More...

An Open Letter to "The Decider"

Huffington Post
Jayne Lyn Stahl
An Open Letter to "The Decider"

While the odds are probably better of getting a response from Santa, there are a few things I'd like to say if you can spare a minute or two before you address the nation tomorrow night.

Respectfully, for openers, whoever told you that "the best defense is a good offense" was misleading you.
To mislead one person is unfortunate, but to mislead a nation is a crime.

It seems you may have pushed the snooze button by mistake, this past November, and gone back to sleep when the citizens of your country exercised their legal, and democratic option to vote, something that has been become vestigial in recent years, and to vote overwhelmingly for a change of direction, and movement towards peace.in Iraq, and globally.

Your fellow Americans registered their opposition not only to your anemic attempts at a rationale for combat, but to your obstinant plans to perpetuate, and escalate a futile, and irresponsible troop commitment. The politics of preemptive war has become little more than a high stakes poker game, and one which the whole world loses.

More importantly, your government has proven itself to be as unresponsive to the needs, and desires of the least and greatest among us as it is irresponsible. Leaders who make laws to cover themselves when they break laws are not what George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson had in mind.

When the default position is defensiveness, there is no chance for real diplomacy, and without diplomacy, there can only be a global battlefield, and more blood shed. Those whose heroic efforts brought us the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights would be horrified by the abuse of power we have witnessed in the past 6 years, and the utter, unparalleled contempt with which the public trust, and the inaugural oath have been handled.

Yes, yes, we need commanders-in-chief who don't buckle under stress who don't take to the bottle like Ulysses S. Grant or to their bed in despair like Abraham Lincoln, but one who bears the awesome, and grave responsibility of sending our young men and women into harm's way owes it to them to listen to what his generals have to say, as well as to his nation's conscience. constitution had, in mind, checks and balances as a way to prevent the kind of abuse of power

Now that the umbilical cord has been cut, Congress will yet have the chance to do what their constituents elected them to do, and work sedulously to counteract the toxicity that continues to try to pass itself off as a war on terror.

No one on earth would want to close their eyes, and rest their head on your pillow tonight. The weight of the world is on your shoulders. We will all be watching, and hoping that you will decide to what is right not for your minions, not for Chevron, not for Halliburton, but for the ever growing number of those who have given, and will give their lives.

It's not too late to change course. History is counting on you. Do it now, while there's still time. Do it now, send the troops home from Iraq, and sit down with Iran. It's time to make progress not war.


Read More...

More Republican senators disagree with Bush's Iraq plan

Reuters
More senators disagree with Bush's Iraq plan
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Opposition to President George W. Bush's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq broadened on Capitol Hill on Monday as a new bipartisan group of four senators announced their disagreement with the strategy.

The senators, including conservative Virginia Republican John Warner, unveiled a proposal that they hoped would be embraced by lawmakers who disliked some of the wording of another bipartisan resolution that was introduced last week, opposing the boost in troops.

The new proposal declares the Senate "disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500 and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives."

But it dropped words used in the first proposal that some senators found objectionable, such as "escalation" to describe the jump in troops, said Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a co-sponsor of the new resolution. Both proposals are non-binding.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was expected to vote on Wednesday on the first of the two resolutions, drafted by Chairman Joseph Biden and three other senators. The Wednesday vote will come a day after Bush makes his annual State of the Union address to Congress, defending his policy on Iraq and other subjects.

A spokeswoman for Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said he was open to working with anyone on the language of resolutions disagreeing with Bush's troop increase.

"What's striking is that the bottom line of both resolutions is the same: bipartisan opposition to the president's plan to send more American troops to Iraq to fight a civil war," said spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander.

Warner, the former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said U.S. troops should be kept out of Iraq's sectarian violence.

"The purpose of this resolution is ... to express the genuine -- and I repeat, the genuine -- concerns of a number of senators from both parties about the president's plan," Warner said at a news conference with co-sponsors Collins; Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson; and Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman.

Warner's proposal did not please senators who support Bush's policy.

"Unfortunately this new Iraq resolution, no matter how well-intentioned, has the same effect as the Biden resolution," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. The new proposal declared Bush's strategy "a failure before it has a chance to be implemented," Graham said in a statement.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans asked the majority Democrats on Monday to join them in setting up a bipartisan committee to oversee Bush's plans for Iraq. Bush should be required to report to the committee every month, said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.



Read More...

U.S. image around world sharply worsens: BBC poll

Reuters
U.S. image around world sharply worsens: BBC poll

LONDON (Reuters) - The image of the United States has deteriorated around the world in the past year because of issues such as Iraq and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, according to a poll by the BBC World Service released on Tuesday.

The proportion of people believing the United States has a mainly positive influence in world affairs dropped seven points from a year ago -- to 29 percent from 36, the results from 18 countries that were also polled the previous year showed.

Fifty-two percent thought U.S. influence was mainly negative, up from 47 percent a year ago, the poll found.

The survey, released on the day President George W. Bush gives his State of the Union speech to Congress, found sharp disagreement with U.S. policy on Iraq which is ravaged by violence nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion.

In all, 26,381 people were questioned in 25 countries. Almost three in four people disapproved of U.S. policy on Iraq, while two-thirds disapproved of U.S. handling of terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba.

"The U.S. administration's recent decision to send more troops to Iraq is at odds with global public opinion ... This policy is likely to further hurt America's image," Doug Miller, president of pollsters GlobeScan, said.

Sixty-five percent disapproved of U.S. policy on last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas, 60 percent of its handling of Iran's nuclear program, 56 percent of its stance on global warming and 54 percent of its policy on North Korea's nuclear program.

More than two-thirds believed the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provoked more conflict than it prevented and only 17 percent thought U.S. troops there were a stabilizing force.

The poll found that the American public also seemed to have serious doubts about U.S. foreign policy. Majorities of Americans polled disapproved of how the United States was handling the war in Iraq (57 percent) and global warming (54 percent) while half disapproved of U.S. policy on Guantanamo and Iran.

Fifty-three percent of Americans said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East "provokes more conflict than it prevents", the survey said.

The poll found U.S. policy was regarded poorly in Britain, Bush's closest ally in Iraq. A majority (57 percent) of the British public saw U.S. influence in the world as mainly negative and 81 percent disapproved of U.S. actions in the war in Iraq, the BBC World Service said.

The poll, carried out between November 3 and January 9, covered Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United States.




Read More...

U.S. drafts resolution condemning Holocaust deniers

Reuters
U.S. drafts resolution condemning Holocaust deniers
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States intends to introduce a U.N. resolution on Tuesday condemning deniers of the Holocaust, a document aimed at a conference in Iran last year dominated by delegates who questioned the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in World War Two.

U.S. officials hope the resolution, which so far is backed by 39 nations including Europeans, Russia and China, could be adopted on Friday in the 192-member U.N. General Assembly.

The measure urges member states "to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event" and "condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust."

It does not mention Iran by name, although American officials said it was a reaction to the Tehran conference convened in December by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most speakers threw doubt on the mass extermination of Jews.

Since coming to power in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has caused an international outcry by terming the Holocaust a "myth" and calling Israel a "tumor" in the Middle East.

At the urging of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the General Assembly in 2005 held its first ever session on the Holocaust to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

The Assembly designated January 27 as the International Day of Commemoration for victims of the Holocaust and the U.S. resolution is timed to coincide with that date.

Up to 1.5 million prisoners, most of them Jews, were killed in Auschwitz alone. A total of six million Jews and millions of others including Poles, homosexuals, Russians and Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis and their allies during the war.

The United Nations was founded on the ashes of World War Two and the U.N. Charter includes the words "untold sorrow" as the world was learning the full horror of the Nazi German death camps.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in December, shortly before he took office, that it was unacceptable for Iran to deny the Holocaust or call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"Denying historical facts especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust is just not acceptable," Ban said.




Read More...

Millions could see taxes up in Bush health plan

Reuters
Millions could see taxes up in Bush health plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 30 million Americans could face a tax hike under President George W. Bush's plan to expand health insurance coverage and address rising health care costs, the White House said on Monday.

"There are always going to be some winners and some losers, but the people who might initially be losers have options," Kate Baicker, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, told reporters.

There are about 47 million people with no health insurance in a country of 300 million. Baicker said Bush's tax proposal would result in "upwards of 3 million or more newly insured people."

Bush plans to highlight the plan in Tuesday's State of the Union speech to the U.S. Congress.

Bush is proposing to make health insurance premiums taxable income, with people who get employer-provided plans that cost more than $15,000 a year facing a tax hike if they do not get cheaper insurance, the White House said. Average family coverage offered by employers costs about $11,500 annually.

The president is proposing tax deductions -- $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual whether or not they purchase their own health coverage or get it from their job -- to help buy insurance.

The plan also envisions funneling federal money to states that seek to arrange for uninsured residents to get coverage. But a White House statement said this would involve no new federal spending or entitlements, instead "allocating current federal health care funding more effectively."

Baicker said about 30 million Americans could face higher taxes under the president's plan "if they didn't change their behavior" -- meaning giving up an employer's more generous health plan in favor of a less-costly one. The White House added that "more than 100 million Americans" would save money under Bush's plan.

Baicker described Bush's proposed tax changes as "revenue-neutral," meaning they would neither increase nor decrease the overall income taxes paid to Washington.

DEMOCRATS SKEPTICAL

"The President's so-called health care proposal won't help the uninsured, most of whom have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets," said California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.

"But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees," he added.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Bush will emphasize opposition to proposals favored by some Democrats for universal health coverage run by the government. Without offering many details, Leavitt also said Bush wants to "partner with the states" in developing plans that provide Americans access to basic affordable health coverage.

Under Bush's plan, states could subsidize health insurance premiums directly, they could establish high-risk pools for the sickest people, and could help individuals and small businesses create their own insurance pools.

To get the federal money states would need to make health insurance affordable by such means as "reducing benefit or premium mandates," it said. Currently, each state has its own set of mandated conditions that health insurers must cover.

States already work with the federal government under the Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance plans for the elderly, needy and the very young.



Read More...

Monday, January 22, 2007

Go Back and Ask the Grunts

Huffington Post
Trish Wood
Go Back and Ask the Grunts

A few months before he died of cancer, much-decorated Vietnam War hero, Colonel David Hackworth told me, "There is no military solution to the war. We have lost the war in Iraq." That was in September of 2004 -two and a half years before the Iraq Study Group weighed in with its own bleak assessment that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," that "the level of violence is high and growing" and that "in Baghdad and several provinces the situation is dire." So why did it take so long for the esteemed members of the ISG and much of the rest of Washington to figure out what Colonel Hackworth was arguing years ago?

The same thing that encourages President Bush to think that his own plan should include sending more troops: both the ISG and Bush seem to have ignored the war's history as told by the troops who have been fighting it.

"Hack's" pessimistic assessment was influenced by his own experiences fighting North Vietnamese guerillas but this "soldier's soldier" was also debriefing his beloved Iraq War "grunts." For the past couple of years, I've interviewed scores of American soldiers, asking them about their experiences in Iraq. I too heard accounts from these GIs that indicated that early on, the hearts and minds campaign to win over the Iraqi people was pretty much lost and with it, the war.

It wasn't long after Baghdad fell that some Iraqis decided they didn't like their "liberators" very much. An idealistic young lieutenant named Jonathan Powers described watching the Iraqis in his sector of Baghdad cope with the build up of sewage and garbage during the stifling summer of 2003. Lieutenant Powers devised a workable $40.00 a week clean-up plan but he could never convince the Coalition Provisional Authority to fund it. "It is summer," said Powers "and a hundred and twenty degrees with cooking sewage sitting in people's neighborhoods, and what have the Americans given them at this point? Nothing." By that fall, Powers and his men were no longer able to socialize with Iraqi civilians. The backyard soccer games ended and soon they would lose their first man to the insurgency.

In Ramadi, the following year, the marines on patrol were surrounded, unable to tell the "good guys" from the bad. "I just had a hatred for the Iraqis, I guess you could say," one told me. "Even the good ones that would actually offer us food, [and] water, I still just had this distrust, like I couldn't turn my back on them. As soon as I turned my back on them, they'd become a bad guy." Another marine related a story about carrying the blood-soaked Kevlar helmet of a dead comrade through a crowd of Iraqi civilians who were smiling at the carnage. Distraught, he shouted at them, "I want to kill you."

Travis Williams served in 2005 and in restive towns, took part in missions that only seemed to make matters worse by inflaming the locals. "There is no way you can go repeatedly into these people's homes, search through everything they own, put their women and children in a room, scare the crap out of them every morning and honestly believe you're making anything better," says Williams. In August of that year, Williams' entire squad--all but him--was killed by an improvised explosive device.

Again and again, the GIs described a near total breakdown in relations between themselves and the people they were dispatched to rescue from a dictator - human nature, a critical element rarely mentioned in the public discussions about how to fix Iraq. The significance of it was noted by Colonel Hackworth, an experienced guerilla war fighter who offered a warning to those who think sending more troops can solve the intractable problems of Iraq. Said Colonel Hackworth, "If you think you can win by throwing bombs and maybe kill a few insurgents, but have a bomb fall on the wrong target and kill a bunch of civilians, then you create more and more insurgents."

Trish Wood is the author of What Was Asked of Us: An Oral History of the Iraq War by the Soldiers Who Fought It (Little, Brown and Company; November 2006)

Read More...

Allow Jim Webb to Address the Full Joint Session in His Democratic Response

Huffington Post and Brad Blog
Brad Friedman
Congressional Dems: You're a Co-Equal Branch, the State of the Union Address is the Perfect Opportunity to Point That Out

Pelosi and Reid Should Allow Jim Webb to Address the Full Joint Session in His Democratic Response

I don't know how long the tradition of an Opposition Party "Response" to the President's State of the Union address has been going on. But for as long as I can recall, it has been a drab, embarrassing, cringe-worthy effort by whichever party found itself unlucky enough to not be in the White House.

Over the last six years, the Bush Administration has run rough-shod over their co-equal Congressional partners, stealing extraordinary power for themselves at every turn with the short-sighted blessings of their Republican chums in the House and Senate as an all-but-castrated Democratic party stood quietly by in the background for the most part.

This year, the Dems have smartly tapped freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to deliver the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union Address. No simpering softee he, Webb has already shown he has the stones to look Bush straight in the eye and deliver as good as he gets in the face of a classic Dubya bully-boy alpha-dog snarl.

But no matter how much clout, moral authority or gigantic balls the former Reagan Naval Secretary and proud father of a son still serving in Iraq may be, the conventional stagecraft of the SOTU and its Democratic/Republican Response simply stacks the cards insurmountably against the opposition party and -- as is likely again this year -- only serves to reinforce a perceived, if undeserved, imbalance between the two parties and the two branches of Government.

Just moments after the predictable, but rousing reception given to any President during a SOTU address -- featuring long and loud applause break after applause break and the undeniable excitement of a live speech delivered on live television to a packed and contentious house -- there is no way that a one-camera opposition party Response delivered in an all but empty room turned TV studio can ever hope to measure up to the pomp and circumstance of the President's address. That fact would be true even if Superman was selected to deliver the opposition party Response.

It's time to make a change.

And it's time for the Dems to take back just some of the White House's self-proclaimed empirical majesty in the bargain.

With the Dems newly in control of both houses of Congress and with a healthy majority of the country now clearly backing them as the best hope for America's future on virtually all fronts, and with a courageous man who knows how to kill before a live crowd, its time they push back and reclaim some of their rightful Constitutional power. Public perception being as integral to that power as almost anything else.

Controlling both the House and the Senate, the Dems can make the rules for both chambers in how the place is to be run as I understand it.

To that end, unless there is something more than merely "tradition" which I'm unaware of and which keeps them from doing so, the Dems ought to give Webb the same platform of the full joint session of Congress to deliver their party's Response to the SOTU.

Webb should deliver his address to that same jam-packed and receptive chamber on the floor of Congress as the President was granted...and which the opposition party, proudly owning majorities in both chambers of the co-equal branch of Government, now deserve to lay out their vision for the country.

As President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, of course, should be invited to keep his seat during the address behind the podium and next to the Speaker of the House. It'll be up to him if he wishes to show the appropriate respect and stay for the speech and join in for the polite applause at appropriate moments, or if he chooses to shamefully abandon his post and leave the on-camera seat empty behind Webb as he gives his address to the same pomp, circumstance and applause breaks as afforded to his co-equal Executive Branch representative just moments earlier.

For the first time in its history, the Opposition Response to the SOTU can be more than merely an embarrassing, limp, pro forma, predictable "hey, don't forget about us!" rejoinder which the TV Networks begrudgingly carry while most viewers have already changed the channel or moved on to other things. Instead, the Response can truly carry the message -- from a level playing field -- of how the Democrats envision the brave new world and their plans bettering the state of our union.

I believe all it would take is a decision by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to keep the joint session open after Bush's address, and for the floor to then be given to Webb to deliver the party's response to all in attendance. I hope that both will consider doing so.

The Democratic party was placed into power last November to take back America. Webb is the perfect representation of that reclamation of power. The State of the Union address gives the Dems, via Webb's response, the perfect moment to make their intentions crystal clear to the nation. But they need to give Webb the same level playing field they've graciously granted to Bush.

In doing so, the Dems may finally show what they stand for -- and that they will no longer be cowed -- instead of merely and meekly serving as bit players and extras in background support for a grand show which George W. Bush no longer deserves.

The battle for the balance of power in this country was long ago turned into a battle measured by which party is perceived by the country as "the toughest guy." The Dems finally have such a tough guy in Jim Webb. And he's ready to go. The way the Dems choose to use the golden opportunity before them will likely say as much about their ability to lead in a dangerous, threatening world as anything else. Will they now have the cajones to finally stand up to the GOP bully as embodied by George W. Bush to reclaim their equal time so long deserved? Or at least as afforded to them by the Constitution? We'll soon find out.

Brad Friedman is Creator and Editor-in-Chief of The BRAD BLOG.

Read More...

Sunday, January 21, 2007

New Orleans

Read More...

Maybe If I Hit It Harder

Read More...

Obama '08

Read More...

Saddam's Forgotten Legacy

Huffington Post
Merrill Markoe
Saddam's Forgotten Legacy

Well, now that the dust has settled and all the cell phones have been put away and the heads picked up off the floor in the gallows room, and all the extra rope put back in to storage... I thought it might be time to look back with a little more perspective at the bright side of the long unsettling secretive reign of Saddam Hussein.

So I Net-Flixed my favorite movie on the subject; a documentary called "Uncle Saddam" which was filmed under false pretenses in the year 2000. Probably a lot of you youngsters don't remember the old pre-American invasion Iraq. To have access to his subject, the director Joel Soler, a Frenchman, claimed to be making a pro-Saddam documentary about architecture. A lot of the footage he shot ended up having to be smuggled out of the country.

Among various highlights, the movie contains a fascinating tour of Saddam's 21 palaces, one of which was totally underground and had an underground airport runway! And one of which came complete with an entry hall floor mosaic of George Bush's face labeled with the inlaid mosaic tile words "Bush is Criminal."

As insane-dictators-freed-from-budgetary-restrictions go, Saddam scored pretty well on the creativity scale. For instance, he really knew how to celebrate a birthday. For his birthday in April 2001, he completed The Umm al-Ma'arik mosque -- translated as the Mother of All Battles mosque -- which he had decorated with four minarets each 43 meters tall, each shaped like a Scud missile and meant to represent the 43 days of conflict with the US during Desert Storm. PLUS (talk about an original idea) a pool shaped like the Arab world and laden with a 24 foot-wide mosaic of the surface details of Saddam's thumbprint! And on his 61st birthday he authorized the construction of a personal artificial lake accessorized by a resort town full of gold domed pyramids linked by beige and pink marble arches! Perhaps concerned that this wasn't enough of a party, 280 couples held a mass wedding.

Compare this to George W. Bush's 56th birthday that included a round of golf with his father.

A lot can be learned about the weirdness of life in Iraq under Saddam in the course of the movie. There's footage of Saddam demonstrating his fishing technique by throwing grenades. Which I guess has nothing on the hunting techniques of Dick Cheney.

And much is said about Saddam's bizarre sado-masochistic family relationships. For example the way he put his two daughters under house arrest after having both their husbands killed. Pretty outrageous. But then again, history may note that Dick Cheney forced his pregnant daughter to have a baby out of wedlock after he campaigned for a law that forbids her to ever marry.

Obviously drawing parallels between the present administration and the presidency of Saddam is a reach and can only go so far. Everyone agrees that Saddam was much, much crazier. For instance, he believed that Mohammed advised him where to put his missiles. Oh wait a minute. Bush takes orders from God .

Well, back to my main point: The film also includes footage of Saddam delivering a rather lengthy discourse on the topic of personal hygiene. A germaphobe, who made sure his office temperature was readjusted daily to match his physical temperature, Saddam woke up every morning at 5 AM to attend to his personal toilette. Cleanliness was very important to Saddam, because, as we can see on film for ourselves, he liked his fellow countrymen to greet him by kissing him in his armpit.

"It is not appropriate for someone to attend a gathering or be with his children with his body odor trailing behind him emitting a sweet or stinky smell mixed with perspiration..." Saddam begins earnestly, from his position behind his desk, looking kind of natty in a light grey double breasted jacket and a white Panama hat with a black hat band," This will take away some of the son's love for the father. "

"Its preferable to bathe twice a day but at least...at least once a day." He continues. (author's note: I personally believe that if he were alive and asked to elaborate, he would agree that this depends on the lifestyle details and levels of filth of the individual male. Much as it does for each of us when we contemplate the instructions to lather, rinse, repeat")

Saddam goes on: "And when the male bathes once a day, the female should bathe twice a day. The reason is that the female is more delicate. And the smell of a woman is more noticeable than the male." (author's note: I would have asked Saddam if he didn't agree that body odor is less a matter of gender than it is about who is doing the smelling of what and from what angle.)

(And for that perhaps I would have been put to death. Oh well. As Jack Bauer said last week when he thought he was being sacrificed to terrorists: "At least I would have died for something.")

But Saddam is not yet finished.

"If a woman can't afford to brush her teeth with tooth paste and a toothbrush, she should at least use her finger."

So, as it turns out Saddam did have a few sensible thoughts upon which we can all agree: Bathing is good. So is brushing your teeth. And when caught without the proper equipment, improvise.

I wonder if, when all is said and done, and we are looking back at the current group in The White House, and are examining the teachings of a very destructive presidency that often looks like it wishes it could have been a free-wheeling dictatorship (albeit one without any insane but entertaining performance artist touches like a pool made to look like somebody's thumb print), we will ever discover any footage of George Bush or Dick Cheney saying anything that made even half that much sense.


Read More...

Deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began

Yahoo! News
20 U.S. service members killed in Iraq
By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer

At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.

The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.

The military gave little information on the crash of the Black Hawk during good weather in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias around the city of Baqouba for months.

Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, a U.S. spokeswoman, said the cause of the crash had not been determined. Navy Capt. Frank Pascual, a member of a U.S. media relations team in the United Arab Emirates, told Al-Arabiya television that the helicopter was believed to have suffered technical troubles before going down.

It was the fourth deadliest crash since the war started in March 2003. The worst occurred Jan. 26, 2005, when a Marine transport helicopter went down during a sandstorm in the western desert. Thirty Marines and one sailor were killed — the most U.S. personnel to die in a single incident in Iraq.

The U.S. military later reported that militia fighters attacked a provincial headquarters in the Shiite Muslim holy city of Karbala, killing five American soldiers and wounding three Saturday night.

The statement said "an illegally armed militia group" attacked the building with grenades, small arms and "indirect fire," which usually means mortars or rockets.

"A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashoura commemorations," said a statement from Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, deputy commander of the Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

Karbala is 50 miles south of Baghdad and thousands of Shiite pilgrims are flocking to the city to mark the 10-day Ashoura festival commemorating the death of one of Shiite Islam's most sacred saints, Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Brooks said Iraqi officials and security forces as well as U.S. troops were present at the meeting, but his statement did not mention other casualties from the attack. It said the headquarters had "been secured by coalition and Iraqi security forces."

Earlier, Karbala Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali had reported that U.S. troops raided the provincial headquarters looking for wanted men but left with no prisoners. But Brooks said that report was incorrect.

The general did not identify any group suspected of staging the attack, but residents reached by telephone had reported seeing military helicopters flying over the local headquarters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been accused of playing a big role in sectarian killings, has been hit repeatedly in recent weeks by operations in which key commanders have been captured or killed by U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Also Saturday, the U.S. military announced that combat Friday had killed an Army soldier in Nineveh province and a Marine in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent stronghold west of the capital.

The crash and other deaths come at a critical time for U.S. forces, as the first of 21,500 reinforcements are arriving in Baghdad and surrounding areas to join a campaign that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are waging to curb sectarian slaughter.

In south Baghdad, U.S. helicopters dropped Iraqi police commandos into the dangerous Dora neighborhood to stage a raid on the Omar Brigade, an al-Qaida-linked Sunni militant group, Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Khalaf said 15 insurgents were killed and five captured during an intense battle at two abandoned houses taken over by Sunni gunmen, who he blamed for a series of kidnappings and killings in a bid to cleanse the once-mixed neighborhood of Shiite residents.

"We were provided with helicopter support by our friends in the multinational forces and we did not suffer any casualties," Khalaf said. U.S. aircraft gave covering fire, but the U.S. military did not respond to a request for comment on the raid.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, Iraqi police and hospital officials said a joint U.S.-Iraqi force searched a hospital in the volatile Sunni-dominated western neighborhood of Yarmouk.

Dr. Haqi Ismail, the hospital manager, said the raid occurred at 4:30 a.m.

"They were looking for someone, they searched all the rooms and the emergency unit," he said.

Al-Sadr's followers voiced increasing anger over Friday's capture of a senior aide to the radical cleric in a raid in eastern Baghdad.

Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament, accused U.S. forces of trying to provoke the Sadrists into violence during the expanding campaign to quell Iraq's fighting.

"We condemn strongly the arrest of Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji. He is moderate and well-known as a media personality and always available in negotiations," al-Rubaie said. "He is a peaceful man and what was mentioned in the American release is lies and justification for the aggression against al-Sadr's movement."

U.S. and Iraqi forces reportedly detained al-Darraji during a raid on a mosque complex before dawn Friday.

The U.S. military, in a statement that did not name al-Darraji, said special Iraqi army forces operating with U.S. advisers had "captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader" in Baghdad's Baladiyat neighborhood, next to the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City. It said two other suspects were detained for further questioning.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, an al-Maliki adviser, told Al-Arabiya television the operation was not coordinated with Iraq's political leaders and was not part of the new security campaign.

Police reported at least 16 Iraqis slain in attacks Saturday. In addition, officials said 29 bodies were found in Baghdad and three in the northern city of Mosul, most of them showing signs of torture — a hallmark of killings by sectarian death squads.



Read More...

Watching TV is Not Sacrifice

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
President Bush: Watching TV is Not Sacrifice

I should be used to it by now, but I am still flabbergasted every time I see yet another example of how painfully stupid our president is. This time it was during an interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS. Lehrer asked the president if he'd asked anyone but the troops to sacrifice for the Iraq War.

Watch his pathetic response here.

Come on, man. "I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night." Are you kidding me? So, the rest of us sacrifice by watching TV? Wow, don't ask us for too much.

On the other hand, watching Bush on TV is a pretty painful experience, so maybe that's what he's referring to. Put aside for a second that this is a hideously cavalier attitude toward the real sacrifice our troops and think about what a dumb answer this is. Even if you thought this, would you really say it on national television? Who thinks saying people sacrifice by watching TV was a smart answer to that question?

He even says people "are in this fight" because they're watching it on television. Can he possibly believe this? Or is he not capable of putting together a coherent thought? I think we all know the answer to that question.

By the way, I took out all his stammering from the quote above. It sounds even dumber when you add the incomprehensible gibberish he adds between words. And are any of the sentences he put back to back in logical order? Does one thought follow another?

1. People sacrifice by watching TV. 2. Our economy is in great shape. Why do those two sentences follow each other? What the hell is he talking about? We have grown numb to how dumb he is. But if you step back for a second and watch any of these interviews as if you have never heard the man before, it is staggering how little sense he makes.

It's painful, but let's continue. In his next rambling point he says, "When you think of the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war."

Oh, are we feeling down? Wow! Well, that must be sacrifice indeed. Gunnery Sergeant Johnson is missing a leg, but I'm feeling a little melancholy. Let's call it even.

Does this man have any feelings? Does he understand the words that are coming out of his mouth? Can he possibly feel that the death and mutilation of our soldiers in any way equates to other people feeling "somewhat down" about what's happening in Iraq?

And Mr. President, for the record, we feel a little more than just "down" about what's happening in Iraq. Unlike you, we feel sick to our stomachs. And unlike you, we care enough to try to change it rather than feed more of our fellow citizens into an unwinnable civil war for the sake of your ego.

But of course this isn't about what Bush thinks of our reaction to the war. This is about the president protecting his rich friends. He wants to make sure they don't sacrifice for this war.

That's why he keeps putting in references to the economy doing well and how we shouldn't raise taxes. So, when he says "people" are feeling somewhat down, he means my rich friends feel somewhat down because they watch the war on TV - and that's good enough sacrifice without us actually asking them to give up any of their cherished tax breaks so we can fund this war.

If George Bush really wanted to win this war and it was so urgent for the country that we do so, wouldn't he restart the draft, rollback the tax cuts and say we're putting in 500,000 more troops and $500 million more in funding to make sure we win. Otherwise, we might lose Indiana to the terrorists.

The reality is of course we're not going to lose Indiana or even Guam to the terrorists, let alone lose them to the Shiites and Sunnis we're actually fighting in Iraq. This has always been an optional war. And Bush is fighting it in the same lackadaisical, devil may care attitude he has always had. A smug look on his face, a sprinkling of more troops, everyone else watches on TV and his friends get more tax cuts and no-bid contracts.

But Bush isn't done yet. He saves his best for last. Get a load of this quote at the end of his answer: "One thing we want during this war of terror is for people to feel like their life moving on."

What??? First of all, that sentence is barely English. Second, Bob Cesca is right, it sounds like Borat talking. He even says "war of terror." Is he from Kazakhstan? Or is this another one of his famous Freudian slips? Third, his point is that we should move on as if nothing is happening during this war of terror. Isn't this a plain admission that he does not want anyone but the troops making any sacrifice for the war? Move along people, nothing to see here, go about your business.

This reminds me of the time he told us we should keep shopping. I bought an iPod yesterday, so I guess I did my part for the war. And I still have both my arms.

Go shopping. Do your part for the war by watching TV and feeling a little down. And then go on with your lives as if nothing ever happened. As if over 3,000 of our men and women in uniform aren't dead and over 22,000 of them haven't come home in pieces.

In the end, I was left wondering if the president is so monstrously unsympathetic to the real plight of our troops in Iraq that he can't understand why these words might seem uncaring or if he is so monstrously stupid that he thinks making light of their sacrifice will go over well with the rest of us. Then I realized, of course, the answer is both.

Read More...

Democrats refuse to budge on Iraq plan opposition

Reuters
Democrats refuse to budge on Iraq plan opposition
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats on Saturday refused to back down in their war of words with President George W. Bush over his plan for stemming violence in Iraq, saying 21,500 more troops being sent was no course change.

"I have serious concerns about the president's plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq," Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said in the Democratic weekly radio address. "His plan is just more of the same."

The White House on Friday denounced as "poisonous" comments by Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said the president was sending in more troops quickly because he knew that once they were in harm's way, Congress would not cut off resources for them.

Democrats, who won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, have pushed for a phased withdrawal of some 130,000 U.S. troops there now. Next week senators could vote on a bipartisan nonbinding resolution opposing the boost in forces.

The resolution also calls for additional diplomacy in the region and the transfer of military responsibilities to Iraqi forces as quickly as possible.

"The American people expect, and our troops and military families deserve, a real plan for success in Iraq that includes political solutions as well as military action," Schweitzer said.

The Republican president has said his plan has not been given a chance to work and urged those opposed to it to offer their own ideas. His aides have scrambled to try to limit the number of Republicans lawmakers supporting the resolution.

Bush on Saturday received a briefing from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Both have just returned from the Middle East where they met with allies and tried to sell the plan to halt the unrelenting violence in Iraq.

He then flew to the Camp David retreat in Maryland where he was expected to spend the rest of the weekend working on his annual State of the Union speech. He will deliver it to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

Bush was accompanied on the trip by Rice, his national security adviser Stephen Hadley and his chief of staff Josh Bolten.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)



Read More...

Saturday, January 20, 2007

My Dinner With Clinton

Huffington Post
Elayne Boosler
My Dinner With Clinton

January 19, 2007 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal: Host Of This Year's WH Correspondents Dinner Claiming He Was Told To Go Easy On Bush...

Head Of WH Correspondents Assoc: "We Didn't Say Go Easy, We Said "'Singe, Don't Burn'"...

And therein lies the difference in character of administrations. Whatever you think of this White House, you can now add "weenies" to the list. They control the press (you know what Al Jazeera means in English? Fox News), the message, the congress (until now, hopefully), the legal system (Guantanamo, military tribunals, whom lawyers can and cannot defend), the "artistic interpretation" of the Constitution (what is it, Swan Lake?) the bills passed by congress (illegal signing statements, or singeing statements, hey, maybe that's why they said singe), appointments (John Bolton, reactionary right wing judges, all appointed by executive decree while congress was in recess), the limiting of young girls' lives and opportunity (gutting Title IX by executive decree, no access to birth control, abstinence only teaching that doesn't work), etc. etc. But now they've just gone too far!!! Telling a comedian what he can and cannot say?

This is the biggest bunch of cowards to come down the pike since that guy dressed as a woman and got into one of the lifeboats as the Titanic was sinking. You sure can tell none of these White House big shots ever served in the military; afraid of a comedian? And one on social security at that? (Which explains why they would be afraid of him. Maybe they fear he's going to ask Bush to explain the "health care plans" debacle for seniors, or why the government won't negotiate price with drug companies).

When Bill Clinton was elected president, I was the first comedian chosen to entertain at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner. It was May, 1993, one hundred days into his first term, and there was enough kindling in those three months to burn down Washington. Janet Reno had just blown the hostage situation in Waco, Texas, and 74 members of the Branch Davidians, men, women, and children, were dead. The Tailhook scandal had just come to light; U.S. Navy pilots were accused of drunken sexual abuse of their female comrades, and civilians, at their Las Vegas convention. Clinton had announced that to bring down the deficit he was, yes, raising taxes. The Republican congress was already dead set against any progress on his watch; he got no cooperation on his proposed health care, budget, or economic policy reforms.

booslerwhcahp.jpg

These were raw, sensitive, explosive issues. There was a private cocktail party before the dinner. I thought that meant about a thousand people stuffed into a room, so I went down late. I walked into the room. It was a dozen people. Bill Clinton and a handful of young guys... and me. The president saw me. "Elayne's here! Get Jim. You have to see this!! This guy does the greatest Ross Perot!!" And over came Jim, and did his Ross Perot, and it was perfect, and we all laughed a lot. And we told jokes. And laughed some more. Hillary came in from giving a graduation speech in Washington. She was in a long gold gown, with long gold hair swept up in an intricate, beautiful do. In came Al Gore and Tipper. We talked, we laughed. The head of the White House Press Association entered, told us how to line up to enter and go to the dais where we would all be eating dinner before the speeches started. (I ate dinner with them first. On the dais. It was Bill, Hillary, Al Gore, Tipper, and me. I felt like the SAT sample question. What does not belong at this table?)

So here's my point. With the most combustible confluence of events ever to befall a new president, not once, ever, did anyone say to me, "Go easy. Don't burn". No one told me what to say or not say. In all that pre-dinner opportunity for someone to attempt to censor me, it never came up.

And I did mention all of it onstage, because that's the job. And Clinton laughed, and winced, and laughed. And the audience laughed, and booed, and laughed, and booed. And the press lambasted me the next day, because that seems to be part of the tradition. No matter who the comedian is that year, the Washington press deems her/him inappropriate, out of line, whatever.

Rich Little doesn't have to burn George W. Bush. He'll burn all right.

Read More...

The Administration is Playing a Shell Game With Its Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping

Huffington Post
Miles Mogulescu
The Administration is Playing a Shell Game With Its Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping

The Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program has represented one of its most egregious claims of unfettered executive power and a threat to our constitutional democracy. It spit in the face of both the FISA Act requiring warrants for such wiretapping and the constitutional protections of free speech, privacy and separation of powers.

Before the election, the Bush administration claimed that this program was vital to protect the security of the nation and criticized critics as being soft in the war on terror.

Recently, a Federal District Court ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional. A Federal Appeals court is set to review the case in two weeks and could issue a precedential opinion holding the program illegal, a decision that could only be overturned by the Supreme Court. A new Democratic Congress is likely to hold hearings with the possibility of legislation specifically requiring case by case warrants.

In that context, the Justice Department suddenly announced on Wednesday that it had received sanction for such wiretapping from a single FISA judge in a secret proceeding. Questioned by Senators on Thursday, Attorney General Gonzales refused to reveal whether the FISA judge had approved only a specific wiretap or had approved a wider program of wiretapping. Although the FISA judge offered to supply her decision to the Senate, Gonzales refused, claiming the decision was classified.

This is part of the Bush administration's continuing shell game to keep its unprecedented and unconstitutional claims of executive power away from oversight by Congress or review by the normal Federal court system.

On the eve of the Supreme Court's review of the case of Jose Padilla, Padilla was transferred to the criminal system, thus preventing a Supreme Court ruling. After the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that an enemy combatant has the right to challenge his detention in court, the administration freed Hamdi and sent him to Saudi Arabia rather than face further judicial proceedings. In a much quoted passage from her decision in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner stated, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

In connection with the NSA wiretapping case, the administration maintains still maintains that is free to operate without court approval and had referred the case to the secret FISA judge on a strictly voluntary basis. President Bush denied that there had been any change in the NSA program except that it had been blessed by the FISA judge. According to Bush, "the reason it's important that they [the FISA judge] verify the legalities of the program is it means its going to extend, make it extend beyond my presidency." In other words, Bush wants to make his unprecedented claims of executive power permanent.

It is essential that the Judiciary Committee continue to aggressively pursue this matter in spite of Secretary Gonzales's stonewalling. Senators must insist that they be provided with all relevant information. If necessary, Congress must pass new legislation spelling out the exact procedures the administration must follow to obtain a warrant.. It is equally important that the Federal Appeals Court hear the case until it can determine the specifics of the administration's procedures and the degree to which the administration continues to maintain the right to wiretap without a case by case warrant..

The Bush administration has over and over threatened our constitutional democracy with claims of unfettered executive power--the future of the country demands that it be stopped.

Read More...

Democratic House votes to protect interns

Reuters
Democratic House votes to protect interns
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to better protect its teenage interns in response to an Internet sex scandal that helped Democrats win control of the U.S. Congress last November.

A day after the House wrapped up its "first 100-hour" legislative agenda in less than half that time, it moved to prevent a repeat of the seedy Republican affair.

On a vote of 416-0, the House approved legislation to add a former intern and a parent of a current intern to the House board that oversees its internship program.

The bill also would require the board to meet regularly and seek bipartisanship by stipulating that each party is equally represented with two House members. The majority party now gets two board seats, the minority one.

Last September, Republican Mark Foley of Florida abruptly resigned from the House after it was disclosed he had sent sexually provocative electronic messages to interns, also known as pages.

The scandal mushroomed after it became known that a number of senior Republicans and aides had received warnings about Foley, prompting charges of a cover-up that damaged the party in the 2006 congressional elections.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, hailed passage of the bill "to protect pages who are in the House's care."

"The Democratic majority will also work to oversee the program and enforce these new rules vigorously, which is key to the success of this program and the safety of our young people," Hoyer said.

On Monday, the House will again focus on ethics when it considers a bill to deny congressional pensions to members convicted of a felony, such as bribery.

In accordance with current law, the punishment will not be retroactive. That means former Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail on Friday for political corruption, would be able to keep his pension.

Republicans groused that much of the legislation so far had been jammed through the House without them getting a chance to shape it. But Democrats were delighted that many Republicans joined them in voting for the popular efforts.

They included legislation to raise the minimum wage, cut in half interest rates on federal student loans, reduce subsidies to big-oil companies, lower prescription drug prices and strengthen America's security.

While tougher fights are certain ahead on such matters as the Iraq war, global warming and immigration reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the early accomplishments.

"These successes are just the beginning. We have set a tone for the 110th Congress that is one of cooperation, consensus and compromise," said Pelosi, a California Democrat.



Read More...