Monday, November 13, 2006

Happy Days, and More to Come

Huffington Post
Frank Dwyer
Happy Days, and More to Come

Happy days are here again, and they're about to get happier.

Once the investigations start--and they have to start, that's the mandate: oversight, answers, the reason we have a Congress, the reason we voted the way we did--the future is, in a sense, out of our hands. It doesn't really matter what anyone wants or says he wants now, or what anyone says will or should happen: one small step, which can't be avoided, will lead inexorably to the next, and then to another, then another, and another--and before long--we can't avoid it--we'll be having a big televised committee hearing, which is, after all, the most fun you can have in your living room--and then, not long after that, we'll be come to the most profoundly satisfying, democracy-affirming, delirium-inducing results we can imagine.

The various Congressional committees will soon begin their mandated investigations. First, we'll have subpoenas, battles in the press, snarling and stalling. What fun! Imagine Cheney! Rumsfeld! all of them! Oh, how well we'll get to know these disdainful, secretive people who worked for us and abused our trust: Wolfowitz and Perle, Tenet and Bremer, Chertoff and Brown, Colin and Condi (what did they do? what did they know?), big oil execs, big pharmaceutical execs, Haliburton execs--all bobbing and weaving, defending themselves by attacking, all under the spotlight of justice. Here we go--Fifth Amendment pleas, lies, more lies, more subpoenas (memos, emails, diaries, secret tapes). Here we go: indictments (some for perjury), new gung-ho Liddys marching off to jail with maniacal fervor, new less gung-ho John Dean's choosing instead with more discretion in their valor to vomit all over the table (wasn't that Ehrlichman's happy phrase?), all this President's men behaving just as those other ones did in the good old days, defying, denying, squirming, cooperating, twisting in the wind, turning on each other, trying to keep a place in the too-crowded lifeboat on the choppy sea, eating each other up.

And new heroes arising. And one of them (who will it be?) asking, relentlessly, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

One step at a time: and then the surviving Republican leadership (Warner, Hagel, McCain, Graham?) will go to Cheney and say, Resign now. The Party, unlike the insurgency, is in its last throes: resign for the good of the Party, blame it on your heart, and if you do we will guarantee you a pardon. Otherwise, we won't. You'll know better than we do how much a pardon might come in handy.

And Cheney will resign.

And then they will go to Bush and say, Replace Cheney now with a someone who can get along with the majority party, someone who is not a rancorous, partisan divider as Cheney and you yourself have been--an elder statesman, who won't try to jump in front of us in the 2008 election: James Baker, Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson. (Not Tom Kean. His obscene shilling for ABC/Disney has bumped him off the least. I wonder if he'll think it was worth it: he might have been President.)

And then the new Vice-President will be sworn in.

And meanwhile the different committees will be turning over so many stones, shining the people's light on so much interesting murk, watching as the surprised creatures, disturbed in their cozy slime, run for cover and find there is no cover, there is no more cover! And the committees will begin to learn some curious things, curioser and curioser. The one I'm most looking forward to and feel most confident about predicting is that the grossly illegal wiretaps for which the Decider said he didn't need authorization and now so frantically, desperately seeks it will actually include surveillance of the Kerry campaign. (Far-fetched? Do you really imagine that lazy, imperviously-privileged, arrogant Bush and his amoral macchiavel, the former genius Karl Rove, would be too smart of principled to do such a thing? They both believed that a "permanent majority" and a sleazy, constant manipulation of the attack on America had forever isolated Bush from outdated Constitutional checks and balances and the pesky indignity of any legislative or judicial oversight. Do you really think little-brain Bush would hesitate to do what big-brain Nixon did, when he had the same opportunity and temptation? Bush's pathology may be narcissistic denial, not paranoia, but surely he would have thought it as important as Nixon did to use every possible means to safeguard his own political power. He'd confused safeguarding his own power, after all, with saving the country. That's why he claimed authority the poor old Framers couldn't explicitly give him, because they couldn't even imagine the awesome responsibility--with the very survival of the nation depending on one man's ability to move quickly and decisively to do whatever he deemed necessary to protect the country from bloody, implacable enemies in an unfortunately permanent war. Of course such a Lord Protector has to keep track of what all the people on his Enemies' List are doing, and though Osama may be hard to spy on, Democrats aren't. It is beyond dispute that the President saw Democrats as his enemies, and the enemies of the country he wanted to protect: just the other day he was saying that if you voted for Democrats "the terrorists win, and America loses." Looked at from that Cromwellian, or Louis XIV, or Nixonian point-of-view, Bush actually had a responsibility to wiretap the Kerry campaign. Did he? We'll see.

And if he did--even my Republican ex-friends, snorting disdainfully, sputtering, obfuscating, trying to change the subject, wanting to lie again about John Kerry's perfectly clear and true remark about an ignorant man (Sunnis? Shiites? Who knew?) who has gotten the whole world stuck in Iraq--when they are finally forced to give their opinions about the possibility of Bush having wiretapped Kerry, these intelligent Republicans (never mind fair and balanced) admit that okay, sure, it's possible, and then go on to say that if Bush wiretapped the Democrats--that was the reason, after all, that Nixon's CREEPs broke into the Watergate--then he should be impeached, like Nixon; and sometimes they add angrily that he should also go to jail.

And if it isn't the wiretaps, it will be some curious lie in the Katrina debacle, or the torture initiative, or the stifling of administration scientist, or colluding in the magical pre-election fall of gas prices, or one of the hundred different high crimes and misdemeanors committed to fight a foolish, murderous war in Iraq, or all of the above.

And so the Impeachment Committee will form in the House.

And after a little time, as the articles proliferate, and an Imperial Executive firestorm or two fails to halt the collapse and subvert, again, the Constitution, and after the people get angrier and angrier, stimulated, as people are, by all the blood in the water, then those same beleaguered Republican leaders, thinking about 2008 and still daring to dream of a two-party system, will pay another visit to the Decider, and they'll say, now--here's one more thing you don't get to decide, now, sorry, we can't save you, resign now, for the good of the Party, and of the country, and so you can finally be the-uniter-not-the-divider you promised to be), resign now, if you think you might find a general pardon from President Rudman helpful down the road--and it looks like you may need one as general as possible. (What's that? No, sorry, we can't do anything about the War Crimes Trials in Germany. Just be careful about traveling abroad. You won't find that much of a hardship, will you?)

And then there will be a final smirking, faux-sincere, combative, jokey frat boy, incoherent, mispronounced, self-serving farewell speech before that one last jaunty strut--arms jutting out from the body to make a little man look bigger, cocky, smirking, maybe a brisk salute or two and some victory signs in among the hand wavings to the assembled White House staff. Another historical Republican perp walk--a perp strut, this time--across the White House lawn to the helicopter, blades already whirling, and then that last sad, humiliating Air Force One flight back to Texas, and a whole lot of leftover life in Crawford, hacking brush, with plenty of time to think about books--not about writing one, of course, but about how in the world you could possibly get enough of them together not to look silly when you dedicate your library.

What I am describing is a real slippery slope. Finally. But it's a little different from the ones the fear- and hate-mongers, the values hypocrites, the faux-religious, the moral bankrupts, the greedy and corrupt and contemptuous, the corporofascists and their stooges kept warning us about. Inexorable, unavoidable, one step at a time--and no escape, no turning back. No turning back for the Decider. No turning back for the dead weight, free-loading, ignorant hordes of non-voters. No turning back for the arrogant, cowardly, manipulating, bought-and-paid for national Democratic machine, however cozy and centrist those dishonored leaders want to be. No turning back for the American people. Democracy. Constitution. Accountability. Justice.

Happy days. No turning back for any of us, once we take the first step; and America just took it.

Read More...

Saudi Arabia: Iraq a major terror base

Yahoo! News
Saudi Arabia: Iraq a major terror base

Saudi Arabia's interior minister on Sunday called Iraq a major base for terrorism, a sign of growing alarm over the neighboring country where U.S. forces are struggling to prevent Sunni-Shiite violence from escalating into full-scale civil war.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif said the situation in Iraq is deteriorating daily and the country has become a threat to the whole region.

"There is no doubt that Iraq now forms a main base for terrorism," he told the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya television station in the capital Riyadh.

"The situation in Iraq is changing day after day, and this situation has numerous threats," he said before his departure to the United Arab Emirates to attend a meeting on security issues in the Gulf states.

The minister also said Saudi youth were being lured to fight in Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi officials have long complained about Saudi extremists crossing into Iraq to join the battle against American and coalition forces. U.S. officials announced last April that Saudis were one of the top five nationalities among foreign fighters captured by coalition forces in Iraq.

The oil-rich kingdom has been moving forward with plans to build a fence along its frontier with Iraq to prevent militants from crossing the border.

Read More...

Democrats: Identify pork sponsors

USA TODAY
Democrats: Identify pork sponsors
By Peter Eisler and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative "earmarks" to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her first agenda item after being elected House speaker will be a vote to require sponsors of earmarks to be identified. Currently, lawmakers can remain anonymous in sponsoring an earmark, which is language in a bill that directs funds or tax benefits to a business, project or institution.

"There has to be transparency," the California congresswoman told USA TODAY last week. "I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic."

Pelosi said some earmarks "are worthy," and they can be a legitimate way for Congress to force fiscal priorities on the White House.

House Republican leaders adopted a disclosure rule in September, but no earmark sponsors have been identified under the rule because it effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007.

Congress begins a lame-duck session today to consider unfinished 2007 appropriations bills. Those bills could give members another chance to insert anonymous earmarks. Regardless, the Republican rule expires at year's end, so Democrats would have to pass their own disclosure requirement.

Earmarking has drawn complaints from groups such as the National Taxpayers Union that say anonymity encourages wasteful spending. Conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have said Republicans' failure to bring accountability to the process helped fuel the party's losses last week.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, cited earmark disclosure as one of several "needed reforms" that Republicans should back in the new Congress. "We hope that the party in which most of us have invested our trust will learn the right lessons" from the elections, he said.

Last month, a USA TODAY investigation found that many special interests got earmarks after hiring lobbyists who were relatives of lawmakers or staffers affiliated with the House and Senate appropriations committees.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000. One famous example was an earmark that set aside millions for a "bridge to nowhere" — a span over a remote Alaskan waterway to a sparsely populated island.

"You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for," Pelosi said. "Or if you do, you have to know whose it is."



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-12-dems-pork-sponsors_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

Pelosi Endorses Murtha as Next Majority Leader

Washington Post
Pelosi Endorses Murtha as Next Majority Leader
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) yesterday as the next House majority leader, thereby stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland's Steny H. Hoyer.

The unexpected move signaled the sizable value Pelosi gives to personal loyalty and personality preferences. Hoyer competed with her in 2001 for the post of House minority whip, while Murtha managed her winning campaign. Pelosi has also all but decided she will not name the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair that panel next year, a decision pregnant with personal animus.

Pelosi had been outspoken about her frustration with Murtha's declaration that he would challenge Hoyer, currently the House minority whip, for the majority leader post long before Democrats had secured the majority. Many believed she would remain on the sidelines, just as Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) did earlier this year when three Republicans vied for the post of House majority leader.

But in her first real decision as the incoming speaker, Pelosi said she was swayed by Murtha's early stance for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Her letter of endorsement yesterday made clear that she sees Iraq as the central issue of the next Congress and that she believes a decorated Marine combat veteran at the helm of the House caucus would provide Democrats ammunition in their fight against congressional Republicans and President Bush on the issue.

"I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power," she wrote. "Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to lead on these vital issues."

Murtha responded, "I am deeply gratified to receive the support of Speaker Pelosi, a tireless advocate for change and a true leader for our Party and our country."

Pelosi's decision could be a significant blow to Hoyer, who has worked for years to move up in the Democratic leadership. Political handicappers had regarded Hoyer to be the strong favorite when House Democrats meet Thursday to choose a majority leader for the 110th Congress. Although Murtha's stance on Iraq has made him a hero among many grass-roots party activists, his positions against abortion and gun control have pushed many House liberals into Hoyer's camp, including the leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

Hoyer's camp counts 21 of the roughly 40 incoming freshman Democrats as committed supporters. Many freshmen believe the Democrats should stick with the team that brought them to the majority, said John Sarbanes, who was elected last week to represent central Maryland in the House.

Hoyer also has the strong support of many of the party's conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, who worry about Murtha's involvement in the Abscam bribery sting in 1980 and what they see as his freewheeling style on the House Appropriations Committee, where he has openly advocated for the interests of his district and his political supporters.

Some of Hoyer's supporters put the best face on Pelosi's intervention, saying Murtha would not have asked for a public letter of support if his campaign were not in trouble.

"I don't think it's significant," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a leading Blue Dog and Hoyer supporter. "Everyone already knew she was supporting Murtha. I don't think this will have much of an impact. Steny's going to win this fight."

But Murtha has garnered the support of some influential Californians close to Pelosi, including Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a liberal firebrand who will chair the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

In a statement, Hoyer said he remains confident he has the votes.

"Nancy told me some time ago that she would personally support Jack. I respect her decisions as the two are very close," he wrote. "I am grateful for the support I have from my colleagues, and have the majority of the caucus supporting me. I look forward to working with Speaker Pelosi as Majority Leader."

Another potentially fractious vote in the House Democratic Caucus was settled late last week when Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the outgoing chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, decided against running for House majority whip. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the only African American in the House Democratic leadership, had already announced his candidacy.

Emanuel instead will stand unopposed for the job Clyburn will vacate, House Democratic Caucus chairman. In his announcement, he appealed for party unity ahead of Thursday's leadership elections.



Read More...

Democrats Aim to Save Inquiry on Work in Iraq

The New York Times
Democrats Aim to Save Inquiry on Work in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, DAVID JOHNSTON and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — Congressional Democrats say they will press new legislation next week to restore the power of a federal agency in charge of ferreting out waste and corruption in Iraq and greatly increase its investigative reach.

The bills, the first of what are likely to be dozens of Democratic efforts to resurrect investigations of war profiteering and financial fraud in government contracting, could be introduced as early as Monday morning.

The move would nullify a Republican-backed provision, slipped into a huge military authorization bill, that set a termination date for the agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The agency’s findings have consistently undermined Bush administration claims of widespread success in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Oversight, the power wielded by Congressional committees to demand information and internal documents and to haul executive branch officials to hearings, by subpoena if necessary, is reverberating through Congress as a Democratic battle cry.

“The unilateral decision made by House Republicans to shut down this critical office should be reversed immediately,” said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is poised to become the majority leader.

The House version of the bill will be introduced by Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat likely to take over as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, a member of Mr. Skelton’s staff said Friday. Mr. Skelton also said he would resurrect a subcommittee on oversight and investigations that was jettisoned by Republicans to investigate military spending.

In the Senate, Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that seeking a new strategy for Iraq would be his primary focus, but that he would also look carefully at military contracting.

“There have been serious allegations and evidence of misconduct among suppliers,” Mr. Levin said. “And the taxpayers, of course, get socked on that. And the troops are not properly taken care of when that happens.”

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said on Saturday that the administration was willing to have discussions with Congress on the proposal to extend the inspector general’s tenure. Mr. Fratto added, “We have a history of cooperating fully with and supporting inspectors general.”

Mr. Fratto said he could not speak more definitively on the subject because the legislation was yet to be released.

In a measure of the momentum behind the bill, it is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, along with co-sponsors Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Joseph I. Lieberman, who won re-election as an independent in Connecticut.

“It is inconceivable that we would remove this aggressive oversight while the American taxpayer is still spending billions of dollars on Iraq reconstruction projects,” Ms. Collins said.

Mr. Reid has said that after the lame-duck session ends, the Democrats will press ahead with Congressional oversight, particularly on Iraq. But Democratic leaders have also been conciliatory in discussing broader efforts to review the administration’s initiatives of the past six years.

The imperative to investigate financial misdeeds extends beyond the military. Congressional aides said that the House government reform committee under Representative Henry A. Waxman of California might also investigate spending related to domestic security and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Appropriations Committee, which is likely to be led by Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, is likely to review more closely spending like large supplementary requests for Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, after the negative political fallout of corruption cases involving lawmakers, the Appropriations Committee is under pressure to curtail earmarks, which are spending measures for specific projects not sought by a federal agency but sponsored by a lawmaker — sometimes anonymously and often for a financial supporter.

Potentially explosive confrontations over foreign policy issues between Democrats and the Bush administration may be unavoidable. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, who is expected to become the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been a critic of the C.I.A.’s secret detention program and the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program.

It is unclear how far chairmen like Mr. Rockefeller may push the administration to obtain more information about secret programs. The committee, like many others, has often degenerated into partisan rancor over the past two years, and Mr. Rockefeller, like other incoming chairmen, has told colleagues that one of his priorities is to restore the committee’s historic bipartisanship.

But there is unlikely to be much downside for the Democrats in going after waste and fraud in government contracting, particularly in the Iraq war, which is not only unpopular with the American public but also where corporate giants like Halliburton, Parsons and Bechtel have committed highly publicized missteps in the rebuilding program.

Investigations by the Iraq oversight agency, led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., have already led to convictions of American occupation officials on bribery charges and uncovered many instances of substandard construction.

Mr. Bowen’s investigations of Halliburton have uncovered tens of millions of dollars of charges for work that achieved little in the way of results, but apparently met the letter of the company’s contract with the United States to repair oil facilities. Mr. Bowen has also found that Halliburton has been using federal loopholes to impede investigations of its work by declaring nearly all information about company activities in Iraq to be proprietary, or sensitive because it could aid the company’s competitors.

So it came as a surprise to many that Mr. Bowen’s office was directed to go out of business on Oct. 1, 2007, by an obscure provision in an authorization bill that President Bush signed last month. The termination language was quietly inserted into the bill by staff members working for Representative Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who now leads the House Armed Services Committee.

As in the bill that the president signed, the new Senate proposal would expand the pot of money that Mr. Bowen could investigate, but it would not set a hard deadline for the agency’s work to come to an end. Both the House and Senate measures extend the deadline at least into 2008, by most readings, but the House measure would also add about $2 billion — for training and equipping Iraqi security forces — to the amount that the agency could investigate, a Congressional staff member said. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who is expected to become the House speaker, said she would strongly support that legislation.

“Democrats want the inspector general to stay at work until the job is done,” Ms. Pelosi said. “Those individuals and companies responsible for shoddy work or fraudulent billing practices must be held accountable.”

Several officials on Capitol Hill said that the locus of resistance to extending the tenure of Mr. Bowen’s office came from the State Department, which believes that its own inspector general should begin taking on the job of investigating reconstruction in Iraq. But that notion finds resistance among some lawmakers who distrust the administration’s will to investigate itself.

Outside the reconstruction program, some agencies are likely to be singled out for special scrutiny, not only the Pentagon, but also the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Incoming Democratic chairman have said they plan to review the C.I.A.’s secret detention and interrogation program for important terrorism suspects and what some lawmakers have said is the sluggish pace of the F.B.I.’s effort to transform itself into a counterterrorism agency.

The Homeland Security Department has had at least some scrutiny from Congress in recent years, most particularly related to its performance and that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

But the new Democratic leaders, their aides said, intend to significantly broaden the oversight efforts, a step that may include more frequent subpoenas for administration officials who have declined to appear for some hearings, as was the case in the hurricane investigation.

One area that almost certainly will draw additional oversight is mass-transit security, said Dena L. Graziano, spokeswoman for Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who is expected to take over the House Committee on Homeland Security.

And Democrats have long argued that the administration is too focused on aviation security, and has failed to devote enough money or attention to preventing bombings like those that have occurred in Madrid and London. Some Democrats, nursing years of slights at the hands of Republican appointees in federal agencies who ignored or brushed aside hundreds of their letters asking for information, are eager for answers. The Senate Judiciary Committee has staff members trying to compile a complete list of unanswered questions.

Some Democrats said before the election that they would inquire more deeply into some issues, asking for fuller accountability among senior officers and civilian officials at the Pentagon over the harsh treatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

“I think the accountability for Abu Ghraib has not yet been accomplished in terms of finding out who was involved, at what level,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

For all the pledges of rigorous oversight, Democrats are moving warily, fearful of a misstep, mainly in national security areas, that could return them to the sidelines as a minority party.

That may explain the focus on less volatile issues like waste and fraudulent spending and why few Democrats are proposing inquiries on hot-button issues, like the underlying rationale for the war in Iraq or the underpinning for the administration’s counterterrorism policies.

Agendas are likely to shift over time, particularly in the House, where the leadership lineup will not be known with certainty for weeks. In addition, the transfer of majority control in both chambers means Republicans and Democrats must switch offices in the House and Senate. Republicans will be forced to dismiss some committee staff members, and Democrats will expand their workforce, in some committees nearly doubling staff size.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Skelton said that in the past, “the Congress has not worked, and has not asked the tough questions or held the administration to account.”

But he said it was the responsibility of every Democrat taking over a subcommittee chairmanship also to apply more scrutiny to government action, and not just those of subcommittees specifically charged with that mandate.

“Our subcommittee chairmen will be able to bring oversight back to their individual subcommittees,” he said.

David Johnston and Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and James Glanz from New York. Eric Lipton contributed reporting from Miami, and Mark Mazzetti and Rachel L. Swarns from Washington.




Read More...

Insurgent activity rising in Afghanistan

Yahoo! News
Insurgent activity rising in Afghanistan
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in 3,700 deaths in 2006, a bleak new report released Sunday found.

In the volatile border area near Pakistan, more than 20 Taliban militants — and possibly as many as 60 — were killed during several days of clashes, officials said Sunday.

The new report said insurgents were launching more than 600 attacks a month as of the end of September, up from 300 a month at the end of March this year. The violence has killed more than 3,700 people this year, it said.

Afghanistan saw about 130 insurgent attacks a month last year, said the report by the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, a body of Afghan and international officials charged with overseeing the implementation of the Afghanistan Compact, a five-year reconstruction and development blueprint signed in February.

The violence "threatens to reverse some of the gains made in the recent past, with development activities being especially hard hit in several areas, resulting in partial or total withdrawal of international agencies in a number of the worst-affected provinces."

The report said that the rising drug trade in Afghanistan is fueling the insurgency in four volatile southern provinces. The slow pace of development is contributing to popular disaffection and ineffective implementation of the drug fight, it said.

Afghanistan's poppy crop, which is used to make heroin, increased by 59 percent in Afghanistan this past year.

Insurgents have launched a record number of roadside bombs and suicide attacks this year, and there have been clashes all year between insurgents and Afghan and NATO security forces, particularly in the southern and eastern provinces near the border with Pakistan.

The 3,700 deaths the report attributes to insurgent-related violence is comparable to the number of deaths — about 3,500 — tallied by The Associated Press this year based on reports from the U.S. military, NATO and Afghan officials.

In the east, Gen. Murad Ali, the deputy Afghan army commander for Paktika province, said 20 bodies were recovered from fighting in Bermel district in the last several days. In addition, he said, two trucks carrying Taliban fighters were destroyed by airstrikes or artillery fire, and officials estimated 40 fighters were killed in those strikes.

Four NATO soldiers and three Afghan soldiers were injured, he said, though a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force said he was not aware of any serious injuries among NATO troops.

Maj. Luke Knittig said the operations in Bermel, which borders Pakistan, were part of an ongoing Afghan-NATO mission to root out Taliban militants before winter.

"We know we've engaged in successful operations in Bermel with a purpose, and we think those have had a very positive effect against insurgent activity there," Knittig said.

Knittig said Ali's estimate of 60 dead fighters "sounds about right to me," but he did not have an independent estimate of the number killed. "We are not into the numbers game here lately," he said.

Death tolls in remote areas of Afghanistan are almost impossible to verify and often vary widely.

Abdul Baqi Nuristani, the provincial police chief, said only 25 militants have been killed in Bermel the last couple days. He said three Afghan and three NATO soldiers were injured in what he called "a very big battle."

Ali said tribal elders took the bodies of eight Pakistani fighters back over the border to be buried.

Afghan officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of not doing enough to prevent Pakistani or other foreign fighters from crossing the border to launch attacks. Pakistan says it does all it can, though border attacks have increased since a September agreement led the Pakistani military to pull out of its lawless tribal region.

Bermel is home to a military base that hosts both Afghan and U.S. soldiers. NATO-led troops aided by military aircraft killed 15 suspected insurgents in the district on Tuesday after troops on patrol came under attack.



Read More...

Lawmakers gear up to fight some old battles

Reuters
Lawmakers gear up to fight some old battles
By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawmakers geared up to fight old battles with President George W. Bush over domestic wiretapping and a contentious U.N. nominee, even as Bush pledged to cooperate with the new Democratic-led Congress that starts in January.

The current Republican-led Congress -- including lawmakers who lost their seats in Tuesday's elections -- returns this week to work through a pile of unfinished legislation on spending, taxes, trade and international affairs that could keep it here until the Christmas holidays.

Bush made clear he wants certain things done while Congress is in Republican hands, including legislation authorizing the administration's domestic warrantless wiretapping program and Senate confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- who became the face of the Iraq war that was a major cause of Republican election losses -- senators from both parties also said they will work quickly to consider Bush's choice of a replacement, former CIA director Robert Gates.

Lawmakers also will choose leaders for the next Congress, when Democrats take control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in 12 years.

All of this is in addition to unfinished budget work for the 2007 fiscal year that began on October 1 and other items already on Congress' agenda including a civil nuclear agreement with India and normalizing trade relations with Vietnam.

Democrats say Bush is asking too much.

"For a Republican Congress that has gone forward for two years and produced so little, and then the president to come up with a huge agenda for the next weeks -- you have to ask 'why didn't you use some time you spent arguing on some other less important issues before,'" said Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the renewed push on Bolton, whose hawkish views made him a conservative favorite, and the domestic surveillance program that critics call unconstitutional, should not be viewed as "necessarily provocative."

DIFFERENT PRIORITIES

Congress has completed just two annual spending bills for the military and domestic security initiatives, and must deal with measures to finance farm programs, law enforcement, the environment, foreign aid and a range of other programs. Those have been operating through a stop-gap measure set to expire on November 17.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who will become majority leader, issued his own priorities list for the lame duck session -- and it did not include Bush's domestic surveillance program or Bolton.

Instead, Reid highlighted bioterrorism legislation, offshore drilling legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year but not the House, the India nuclear agreement and a bill extending popular business and individual tax breaks, in addition to the spending bills on everyone's list.

Bolton's nomination appears doomed given continued opposition by Democrats and a key Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who lost his reelection bid.

The plan is for lawmakers to break after next week for the Thanksgiving holiday and return starting on December 4 to finish the leftovers. A Senate Republican aide said a bill giving nuclear-armed India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in three decades may be ready by then.

The aide also said he hoped the House would accept a Senate-passed bill that would open a small new area in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and natural gas drilling. The House backed a broader bill that would open exploration in most U.S. Atlantic and Pacific waters more than 100 miles from shore.



Read More...

White House intent on Bolton for U.N. envoy

Reuters
White House intent on Bolton for U.N. envoy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is intent on overcoming Democratic opposition to U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, the White House said on Sunday, but top Democrats said Congress would not confirm the outspoken envoy.

"I think if (Bolton) actually was able to get a vote in the full Senate, he would succeed ... I'm still hopeful that we can get him through," White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"He's been a good ambassador. He deserves confirmation, so we are following the rules," Bolten said.

The White House will try to build more bipartisan support for the nominee, Bolten said, instead of trying to sidestep Congress by keeping Bolton at the United Nations in a job that does not require congressional approval.

When originally faced with Democratic opposition, Bush put Bolton in the U.N. job in August 2005 with a temporary recess appointment that did not require congressional approval but expires in January.

Bush, now in an unfriendly political environment after Democrats swept last week's congressional elections, wants to see Bolton formally approved for the U.N. ambassadorship before Democrats take control of Congress in January.

Democrats have blocked confirmation of Bolton, a former undersecretary of state for nonproliferation, since he was first nominated in March 2005, charging he is ill-suited for the diplomatic workings of the United Nations.

"Mr. President, if you really mean it, that you really want to cooperate and have a bipartisan (support) -- play by the rules, Mr. President. ... Send somebody else," Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, said on "This Week."

Bolton has been a polarizing figure, not just among Democrats. Opposition from Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican who lost his seat in last week's elections, might also hurt Bolton's chance of confirmation.

'HE'S GOING TO LOSE'

The nominee "doesn't even have the votes of a Republican-controlled committee. ... He's going to lose," Biden said.

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who will become the Senate majority leader, also indicated Bolton's chances were not good.

"Even before we took over, the Republicans didn't have enough votes to get the guy out of committee, so I think we should go to things we can work together on," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, another senior Democrat, told ABC that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has "not decided that he is the appropriate person for that job."

The White House's Bolten declined to confirm what course the White House would take if Bolton's nomination failed again.

He told CNN's "Late Edition" show that at least one lawmaker, Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, has reconsidered earlier opposition to Bolton. "We hope other members will see that," Bolten said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett told "Fox News Sunday" that Bolton's record in the United Nations -- especially in building support for resolutions on North Korea and Iran -- had proved naysayers wrong.

"He's done a good job. We believe that both senators from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party ought to give this man the opportunity to continue," Bartlett said.

In blocking Bolton's original nomination, Democrats said he manipulated intelligence to promote hawkish views in his previous arms control job. He also has been criticized for having a go-it-alone attitude toward foreign policy but supporters say he is a strong defender of U.S. interests.




Read More...

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Another Girl In The Club

Read More...

Heckuva Job!

Read More...

I am a Democrat!

Read More...

Stuff Happens!

Read More...

Hooray!

Read More...

Never Mind the 'Results': Election 2006 Was a Disaster for E-Voting Systems Across the Nation

Huffington Post
Brad Friedman
Never Mind the 'Results': Election 2006 Was a Disaster for E-Voting Systems Across the Nation

(Will Someone Please Tell the Headline Writers at the New York Times and the Associated Press?)

ComputerWorld has just posted the following article of mine in full. Here's the first few (pre-CW-edited) grafs to whet your appetite...

ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE SLAYS NINE!
Terrorizes Florida in Thrill-Kill Rampage

That headline was from a satirical column written by Andy Borowitz published last Monday, the day before Tuesday's mid-term election.

Unfortunately, given the post-election coverage by some of the nation's leading media -- or at least their headline writers -- it seems that only an event such as a Diebold voting machine becoming "unmoored from the floor and...trampling everyone and everything in its path," as Borowitz wrote, would qualify as anything more than a "glitch", "hiccup", "snag" or "snafu". At least if you guage the coverage from the headline writers at NYTimes or Associated Press.

"Voting System Worked, With Some Hiccups," declared the AP headline on Wednesday. "Polling Places Report Snags, but Not Chaos," echoed the Times.

"Hiccups"? "Snags"? Try telling it the thousands of voters around the country who were unable to simply cast a vote last Tuesday because new, untested electronic voting machines failed to work. Monumentally. Across the entire country.

"Not Chaos"? Apparently the Times headline writers failed to check with the folks in Denver who were lined up around the block for hours to vote. They didn't even bother to read the the Denver Post who headlined the problem as a "Voting Nightmare" during the day on Tuesday and quoted voter Lauren Brockman saying "We will not get to vote today," after he had showed up before work to vote at 6:45 a.m. at the Botanic Gardens only to wait on line for an hour before giving up.

They didn't check with Colorado's Gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter who had to wait almost two hours to vote, or with Sean Kelley, a Denver resident who said to the Post, "I can't believe I'm in the United States of America," before he gave up and went home without voting after waiting three hours in line when electronic machines broke down.

The courts in Colorado refused to allow the city's new consolidated "Election Centers" to remain open for extra hours that night. And yet this was only a mid-term election with far lower turnout than we can look forward to in 2008.

Similar problems led to slighly more responsible officials ordering polls to be kept open longer than scheduled in at least eight other states due to voting machine problems. In a NY Times story published the day before (which apparently the headline writers of the previously mentioned piece failed to read), it was reported that in Illinois "hundreds of precincts were kept open...because of late openings at polling places related to machine problems" and in Indiana "voting equipment problems led to extensions of at least 30 minutes, in three counties."

Other states where polls remained open late due to the inability of legally registered voters to vote when they showed up earlier in the day include Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia and North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio.

But the list of problems and, yes, meltdowns (not "glitches" "hiccups" "snags" or "snafus") is still pouring in from around the country. My inbox has been beyond readability since polls opened on Tuesday morning, and my ability to keep up had already been near the breaking point in the weeks prior just from similar reported disasters that occured with these failing, flipping, and flimsy new pieces of junk during the Early Voting period in Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and California just to name a few.

On Election Day, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had received about 17,000 complaints in their toll-free hotline by 8pm. Common Cause received 14,000 calls by 4 p.m. John Gideon at VotersUnite.org performed the Herculean task of logging as many news reports as he could in a searchable online database of reported election problems that day.

One big fat bullet seems to have been dodged when George Allen conceded in his Virginia Senate race Thursday. Had he chosen not to, America would have found itself smack-dab in the middle of another Florida 2000 crisis with the balance of the entire United States Congress depending on voting machines in a state which offer absolutely no way to recount ballots to achieve any form of accuracy or clarity in the race. The battle of the forensic computer scientists trying to figure out what happened would have been another long national nightmare.

But that didn't happen, so everything's cool...

For the complete story, including other bullets barely dodged this week -- from the Santorum Senate race in Pennsylvania to innumerable U.S. House elections currently uncountable and unrecountable due to the failures of these god-forsake machines -- and the ravages of an American electoral system in tatters no matter how the headline writers at the major national media and the Voting Machine Apologists are hoping to spin things...see my complete piece just published at ComputerWorld...

(Oh, and find out how that Diebold Voting Machine Killer Rampage in Florida comes out too!)

Read More...

Time For A Big Ol' Cup Of 'Shut The F*** Up'

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
Time For A Big Ol' Cup Of 'Shut The F*** Up'

Shut the f*** up!Last week, I described a nightmare scenario in which the Republicans won the midterm prompting the president, high on mandate juice, to form the Department of Shut The F*** Up, headed by a sock puppet named Secretary Fiddlesticks.

Now that the Democrats have taken back the Congress and 51+ percent of America finally has a voice in government again, I think it's time to seriously let fly. So at the risk of sounding contentious in this all-too-genuine era (several days) of bipartisanship, here now is a roll call of people who must officially shut the f*** up.

1) Republican trolls who wrap up their anonymous and incomprehensible criticisms of progressives with the phrase, "and that's why your party never wins," need to shut the f*** up.

2) The cowards who so easily disregard our liberties by shrugging off the president's illegal wiretapping; the cowards who shrug off the Military Commissions Act and the death of habeas corpus; and the cowards who shrug off torture with the phrases, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about," or, "You can't [blank] if you're dead," ought to shut the f*** up.

3) Anyone who still believes that global warming is a myth? Shut the f*** up.

4) Rush Limbaugh must shut the f*** up. On second thought, strike that. The more we see Violet Beauregard flapping his arms and mocking Parkinson's patients, the better off the rest of the nation will be.

5) In Ann Coulter's latest column, he wondered when the Democrats would be fitting Senator-Elect Jon Tester with a "leotard." Speaking of tards, Mr. Coulter needs to shut the f*** up. And this order stands for anyone who claims Senator-Elect Tester is a "conservative Democrat." He could very well be the face of the New Progressive Democrat and one of the most genuine lawmakers elected Tuesday. Prediction: if he isn't already, Tester will quickly become a rock star in this party.

6) I think it was Bill Maher who mentioned this but it stands repeating here: neocons who have made multiple rosy predictions about Iraq need to shut the f*** up and are forthwith banned from making any more predictions.

7) Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other homophobes who use the "San Francisco Liberal" label for Speaker-Elect Pelosi must... you know. We all understand that it's right-wing code language meaning "homo-values." If that's what you mean, just say it. That is, unless you're not man enough.

8) If you still believe that Karl Rove is a genius, wizard, architect or anything short of overrated, you must shut the f*** up. One popular vote loss, one win, one near loss to a disorganized opponent and one outright loss means one thing and one thing only: mediocrity. Racking up this kind of record by means of dirty tricks, race-baiting and questioning the patriotism of decorated war veterans makes Rove a mediocre hack at best.

9) Ed Gillespie, the man who's just a neck with a mouth, is officially ordered for the last time to shut the f*** up.

10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference Wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.

"And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories."

"This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate."

"...we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday."

"...and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills."

"We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes."

11) And finally... Mr. President. Saying that you're going to work with Congress and compromise for the sake of the nation doesn't mean shoving your unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Act and your bellicose anti-U.N. U.N. ambassador through a lame duck session. So if you don't really intend to be bipartisan, then shut the f*** up. You pride yourself on letting people know exactly where you stand and, despite the fact that you routinely stand on dangerous principles, there's at least some cold comfort in knowing what you're up to. But it's clear that that President Bush is long gone -- replaced by a man who can't even be honest with his own base about things like the Iraq War, subsequently leaving his allies alone, confused and scrambling to assuage the anger of an increasingly hostile constituency. This last part? Keep it up, thank you.

And that's the roll call. I've spent the last several days not only breathing in the sweet aroma of real-life governmental checks and balances, but I've also been evaluating where we go from here. Clearly Speaker-Elect Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the daunting task of working with the White House to not only push through vital pieces of legislation, but they also must do so in a way that doesn't raze their chances for further pickups in 2008. It goes without saying that any misstep in the face of this Republican Party (and its media lapdogs) could spell disaster. So they have to play nice in some ways, but you and I are best served by remaining on the attack and never hesitating to tell those who deserve it to shut the f*** up.

Read More...

Puppet Strings

Read More...

Many Bush programs need investigation, incoming Reform chairman says

USA TODAY
Many Bush programs need investigation, incoming Reform chairman says

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.

There's the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of war profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

"I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."

Waxman, who's in his 16th term representing West Los Angeles, had plenty of experience leading congressional investigations before the Democrats lost control of the House to Republicans in 1994.

That was the year when, as chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, he presided over dramatic hearings he convened where the heads of leading tobacco companies testified that they didn't believe nicotine was addictive.

The scene made it into the movie The Insider, but Waxman noted Friday that no subpoenas were issued to produce that testimony.

Republicans have speculated that a Democratic congressional majority will mean a flurry of subpoenas and investigations into everything under the sun as retaliation against the GOP and President Bush.

Not so, Waxman said.

"A lot of people have said to me, 'Are you going to now go out and issue a lot of subpoenas and go on a wild payback time?' Well, payback is unworthy," he said. "Doing oversight doesn't mean issuing subpoenas. It means trying to get information."

Subpoenas would be used only as a last result, Waxman said, taking a jab at a previous committee chairman, GOP Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who led the committee during part of the Clinton administration.

"He issued a subpoena like most people write a letter," Waxman said.

Waxman complained that Republicans, while in power, shut Democrats out of decision-making and abdicated oversight responsibilities, focusing only on maintaining their own power.

In contrast to the many investigations the GOP launched of the Clinton administration, "when Bush came into power there wasn't a scandal too big for them to ignore," Waxman said.

Among the issues that should have been investigated but weren't, Waxman contended, were the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the controversy over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, and the pre-Iraq war use of intelligence.

He said Congress must restore accountability and function as an independent branch of government. "It's our obligation not to be repeating what the Republicans have done," Waxman said.





Read More...

Impeachment 'Off the Table,' Conyers Says

Impeachment 'Off the Table,' Conyers Says
By Jonathan Tilove
Newhouse News

WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, said Thursday that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."

Through his investigations as the ranking Democrat on Judiciary, Conyers became a hero to people who would like to see President Bush impeached for the manner in which the U.S. was led to war in Iraq, among other alleged crimes. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said the new Democratic Congress will not pursue impeachment.

But Tuesday's big Democratic victory, in which Conyers secured a 22nd term and Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate, has only invigorated a large national network of grassroots impeachment activists. Conyers' statement is unlikely to dampen their enthusiasm or efforts.

"This is still in some ways a democracy and we will, as American citizens, use our voices to suggest what we think should be on the table," said David Swanson, co-founder of afterdowningstreet.org and Washington director for impeachpac.org.

Conyers laid out the grounds for impeachment in a report last December called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance." It is more than 350 pages long.

The Downing Street reference is to the minutes of a secret 2002 meeting of British government officials that critics of the Iraq invasion consider the "smoking gun" indicating the Bush administration fixed its pre-war intelligence to justify an already decided-upon plan to remove Saddam Hussein.

In his statement Thursday, Conyers said, "To be sure, I have substantial concerns about the way this administration has abused its authority, but impeachment would not be good for the American people. The country does not want or need any more paralyzed partisan government -- it wants a check and balance and real progress on the issues that matter to their lives."

But as recently as May 18, in a column in The Washington Post headlined "No Rush to Impeachment," Conyers wrote that a new Congress ought to seek answers about whether "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war" as well as the extent to which "high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." A select committee would forward evidence of any potentially impeachable offenses to the Judiciary Committee, he wrote.

Swanson sees it this way: "If we get a real investigation there will be one of two outcomes, or both -- either there will be clear grounds for impeachment, or there will be a crisis when the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge subpoenas."

The common wisdom from the Democratic leadership and the Washington punditocracy is that pursuing impeachment would be a fatal political mistake.

"The Democratic Party cannot repeat the mistakes of the Gingrich Republicans, which allowed themselves to get identified in the public eye as extremists," said Jeremy D. Mayer, a professor in the George Mason University's School of Public Policy.

Pelosi's first test, Mayer said, will be "reining in" those on her party's left end, many of whom, like Conyers, are black.

Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland and long-time observer of the Congressional Black Caucus, doubts that Conyers will press impeachment.

"There may be some pressure from the far left, but I think most people understand that is not popular among the American people at a time when the Democratic Party is trying to tee up for 2008," Walters said. "The American people just threw over the radicalism of the right and they are not going to want to replace it with the radicalism of the left."

But Swanson said the Democratic leadership, these observers, and the mainstream media have the politics of impeachment exactly upside down. "What the media is instructing (the Democrats) to do is be nice, play civil," he said. But in his view, an election in which not a single Democratic member of Congress was defeated is not a mandate for meekness.

A Newsweek poll in October found that 28 percent of respondents thought impeaching Bush should be a top priority of a new Congress, and 23 percent thought it should be a lower priority, while 44 percent thought it was a bad idea altogether. That is more support for impeaching Bush than there was at any point for impeaching Bill Clinton, Swanson said.

"My nine-year-old niece asked me, `If you're going to impeach Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, how can you not impeach Bush for lying about a war?"' said William Strickland, a professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. "This is a slam dunk."

Strickland said there is a moral imperative for Congress to undo Bush's policy of pre-emptive war and repair America's standing in the world.

Pelosi, as it happens, was among the Americans in a handful of jurisdictions who has had a chance to vote on impeachment. Proposition J on the San Francisco ballot Tuesday called for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Cheney. It passed with 59 percent of the vote. In neighboring Berkeley, a similar measure passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote.



Read More...

Elections Are Not Over In Nine House Districts

Elections Are Not Over In Nine House Districts
6 GOP Incumbents Hold Slim Leads
By Philip Elliott
Associated Press

Nine House races remain without winners after Tuesday's election, with state officials not rushing to certify the results.

Seven races involve Republican incumbents in tight contests to keep their seats, but in only one is the Democratic challenger ahead. In Connecticut, Democrat Joe Courtney leads Rep. Rob Simmons by a scant 166 votes. Almost a quarter of a million votes were cast. Recounts were scheduled through the weekend in 64 towns.

Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the House Republican leadership, leads her central Ohio race by 3,536 votes, pending the count of more than 9,000 provisional ballots.

Elections officials in the Columbus, Ohio-area have decided to delay that count by one day, to Nov. 19, so it does not disrupt the Michigan-Ohio State football game in Columbus on Nov. 18.

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), who called Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) a coward last November, is ahead of her challenger, Victoria Wulsin (D), by 2,862 votes. Counting provisional and absentee ballots could take nearly two weeks.

Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.), who threatened to slap her wheelchair-bound Libertarian opponent after a debate late last month, is ahead of Democrat Gary Trauner by fewer than a thousand votes as canvassing continued. The Libertarian, Thomas Rankin, has garnered approximately 7,500 votes.

In Georgia, freshman Rep. John Barrow (D) leads former congressman Max Burns (R) by fewer than 900 votes in a rematch of their 2004 race, which was decided by nearly 8,000 votes. There will be an automatic recount unless the margin widens significantly before the results are certified next week.

The vast majority of voters in a suburban Seattle district cast ballots by mail, and they count as long as they were postmarked by Tuesday. Rep. David G. Reichert (R) led Darcy Burner by about 3,100 votes three days after poll-based voting ended.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) had a 449-vote lead over Larry Kissell (D), with about 1,500 provisional ballots remaining to be counted.

Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) led Patricia Madrid (D) by about 1,600 votes, with about 4,400 ballots still to be tallied.

A recount is set to begin Wednesday in the Florida district represented by Rep. Katherine Harris (R). Republican Vern Buchanan has a 373-vote lead over Christine Jennings (D) and has declared victory.

Two runoff elections are planned. Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), the subject of an FBI bribery investigation, will face fellow Democrat Karen Carter on Dec. 9, and Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tex.) will face former congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez (D) in a yet-to-be-scheduled runoff.

Democrats already have won 230 of the House's 435 seats. Republicans hold 196 seats.



Read More...

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq

Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Pentagon is conducting a major review of the military's Iraq strategy to determine "what's going wrong and should be changed" to attain U.S. objectives in the war-torn country, the nation's top general said yesterday.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, initiated the review this fall after starkly deteriorating security in Baghdad led commanders there to rule out any significant cut this year in the level of U.S. troops in Iraq -- now at about 145,000 -- according to senior defense officials and sources.

Pace said he, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, who as head of Central Command oversees the U.S. military in the Middle East, are all working on recommendations for how to improve Iraq strategy.

The military's growing view that Iraq is at a crossroads, a belief spurred largely by intensified sectarian fighting and mounting U.S. casualties on the ground, coincides with political pressure in Washington to find alternatives to the current Iraq policy, heightened by this week's election and the Democratic takeover of Congress.

Pace is scheduled to meet early next week with members of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission mandated by Congress to review the Bush administration's Iraq policy and propose changes, a senior defense official said. Pace's review and other military recommendations are expected to be merged with the work of the Iraq Study Group as part of a broad effort by the administration to redefine Iraq policy. "It will become part of something bigger," the source said.

"We need to give ourselves a good, honest scrub about what is working, what is not working, what are the impediments to progress, and what should we change about the way we're doing it," Pace said in an interview yesterday with CBS News.

"We'll make the changes that are needed to get ourselves more focused on the correct objectives," Pace said, adding in a later interview that the U.S. objectives are themselves in question.

In a string of television appearances to mark Veterans Day, Pace declined to provide details of any specific recommendations for major military shifts in Iraq, saying that would be "premature" and could compromise the effort. "We should not be signaling to our enemies what we're going to do next," he told MSNBC.

Pace said he and other military officials "continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change" and give the defense secretary and the president their "best military advice."

Still, sources said that Pace's review marks a more fundamental and open-ended look for possible solutions in Iraq than the military has undertaken to date, growing out of a realization that Iraq could descend into chaos and that the current strategy is inadequate.

"The collapse of the strategy in Baghdad . . . caused a very deep introspection by the military," said a source connected to the Pentagon, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Asked by one interviewer whether the United States is winning the war in Iraq, Pace replied: "You have to define 'winning.' I don't mean to be glib about that.

"Winning, to me, is simply having each of the nations that we're trying to help have a secure environment inside of which their government and people can function," he said, in remarks that seemed to depart from the administration's more ambitious stated goal of building a democracy in Iraq.

"You are not going to do away with terrorism," Pace continued. "But you can provide governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere with enough security capacity to keep the acts below a level at which their governments can function," he said.

Pace's comments also could foreshadow a reassertion of influence by senior officers in the wake of this week's resignation by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to military officers and analysts. Moreover, some military officers have voiced concern in recent days that if they do not assert a greater role in formulating a future course in Iraq, that course will be defined for them by the resurgence of congressional Democrats, many of whom favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"Senior military officers in Rumsfeld's watch felt their counsel was only welcomed when it was congenial to Rumsfeld's view, and they now want the whole story, good and bad, to be reflected in whatever strategy the administration pursues," said Loren B. Thompson, a national security expert at the Lexington Institute, a public policy think tank.

Pace said yesterday that he was surprised and saddened by Rumsfeld's resignation, calling him "a strong advocate for all of us in the military." But he also praised President Bush's nominee to replace Rumsfeld, former CIA chief Robert M. Gates, as a "very talented, dedicated patriot." Gates "has a reputation as a man who gets things done, a man who is collaborative and solicits subordinates' opinions," Pace said.

"Unless they get a very hard push-back from Mr. Gates during the early days of his tenure, the officers will try to reassert military control over the strategy in Iraq and the investment agenda," Thompson said.

Pace said the military will forge ahead with its work in Iraq, regardless of the change in civilian leadership at the Pentagon. "The change in leadership itself will not have a direct impact on what we do or don't do in Iraq," he said. "We in the military are used to changes of command."




Read More...