The Last Polka

"But one must know how to colour one's actions and to be a great liar and deciever. Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deciever will always find someone ready to be decieved."

Monday, April 17, 2006

RI Senate Update

According to The Hotline and WJAR/AP Matt Brown (D) primary campaign for Sen. Linc Chafee's (R) Senate seat ain't going so well. He's apparently running out money and has fired some key staffers. I guess his experience overseeing elections in the smallest state as RI Sec. of State has prepared him for the big leagues.

Also, Chafee will reportedly be joined by First Lady Laura Bush at a fundraiser in the coming weeks.

Light blogging for a little while longer...lots of work to do...

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Hannity Never Ceases To Amaze...

The Red Sox are losing, so I flipped it over to Fox News and caught Sean Hannity trying to blame the President's dreadful poll numbers on the possibility that a large segment of American's have forgotten 9/11. I shit you not.

I'll try to get the transcript up when its available.

Rummy vs. The Retired Generals

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is under attack from an increasing number of retired military officers. The latest, according to the Washington Post, is former head of the 1st Infantry Division, Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.), who had this to say about his former boss:

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." [...]

"It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense."

The article goes on to outline the comments of other retired officers who have called for Rummy to step aside. One of the things that's frustrating about Rumsfeld is that he knows he's doing a bad job--he's offered his resignation at least twice. The President, once again, refuses to accept reality and move past the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon.

Don't expect the Generals to pipe down anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rumsfeld go at some point in the relatively near future. Let's just hope that will make some sort of difference for our troops on the ground.

Monday, April 10, 2006

ABC Poll

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but some numbers from the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll stand out. Okay, we get it - President Bush's approval ratings are in the shitter. But look at this: 38% of respondents approve of the job that President Bush is doing, while 47% STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. Overall disapproval is at 60%.

To reiterate, 9% fewer approve that strongly disapprove. I don't know about you, but that says a lot - Bush is losing this country at an alarmingly fast rate.

UPDATE: Looking at the data, here are a few more numbers that must go up the President's ass...

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling...

Iraq: Approve - 37%; Disapprove - 62%

Economy: Approve - 40%; Disaprove - 59%

Immigration Issues - Approve - 33%; Disapprove - 61%

All of the polling data is available here.

Note: Political Wire notes the same stunning finding that I did above.

Fukuyama Strikes Back!

Take that Charles Krauthammer!!!!

Getting Serious On Darfur?

Wes Clark and John Prendergast have an op-ed in today's Boston Globe discussing a U.S. plan to end genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Also, the Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration is ready to support a larger role for NATO in that troubled region.

Clark and Prendergast have this to say:

His administration has yet to form a united front on Darfur because of competing interests at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Bush needs to pull together these disparate players and create a real policy to end atrocities, punish human rights violators, and create sustainable peace.

Now that Bush has finally admitted that his administration needs to do better, he should appoint an envoy to harmonize US policy toward Darfur and demonstrate his personal resolve to end the suffering. [...]

Bush needs to ensure an accelerated AU handover to the UN and identify a capable nation to lead a UN-mandated stabilization force to immediately buttress the AU's civilian protection efforts and help secure the border.

Military planners at the Pentagon need to work closely with this lead nation to plan the mission and provide military assets that enhance the force's ability to respond quickly and aggressively to attacks against civilians. [...]

[T]he United States should press much harder for UN Security Council sanctions against government and rebel officials most responsible for the crisis. Properly executed, such a policy would strengthen cooperation from the government of Sudan.

President Bush has opened the door for stronger US action in Darfur. Now it's time for him to follow through by leading a focused diplomatic and military effort to end the crisis.

And this from the aforementioned WaPo article:

The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan's Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said.

The move would include some U.S. troops and mark a significant expansion of U.S. and allied involvement in the conflict. So far, NATO's role has been limited to airlifting African Union forces to the region and providing a few military specialists to help the peacekeeping contingent. [...]

Plans under consideration envision fewer than 500 NATO advisers. They would be assigned to African Union headquarters units and assist in logistics, communications, intelligence and command and control activities, not engage directly in field operations. The likely number of U.S. advisers has yet to be determined, officials said.

"This is supposed to be a support effort, not a take-over-the-mission effort," said the administration official, whose name and agency could not be identified under terms of the interview. As the reason for insisting on anonymity, the official cited the sensitivity of the internal planning.

For more of my thoughts, go here.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Hersh Is At It Again

I would be neglecting my duties as a blogger if I didn't link to this Seymour Hersh article, outlining his anonymous sources' assessments of the Bush Administration's intentions regarding Iran. The article is rather lengthy but is certainly worth the time. It is vintage Hersh as well, with sources described as "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon," and "A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror." He even cites a member of the House Appropriations Committee who was not briefed about Iran, but knows someone who was.

Regardless, Hersh provides insight into debate within the Administration over how to deal with Iran:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. [...]

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [a former senior intelligence official] added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran without success, the former intelligence official said. The White House said, "Why are you challenging this? The option came from you."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

This is merely a taste of how Hersh's article reads. He elaborates further on the tactical nuclear option (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) and discusses mock operations that are already occurring on the Arabian Sea, among other things. Do yourself a favor and go read the whole thing. It's fascinating.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

A Reasonable Assessment Of The Leak Controversy

Steven Taylor has a great post discussing the Bush-Cheney-Libby leak story. Rather than attacking or defending the President, Taylor assesses the situation for what its political realities. Here's some of what he writes, though I recommend reading this post in its entirety:

The supporters would appear to be correct (I am not an expert on the law in this area, but there appears to be a consensus on this topic): the President can declassify documents as he sees fit... However, the opponents are correct as well: there was some clear politicking going on here, and the President can be seen to be acting hypocritically on the subject of leaks. Further, the situation is complicated by the fact that the White House has, heretofore, painted the Plame leak as something that a rogue member of the administration did on his or her own. Even if there is no evidence that the President directly or indirectly authorized discussion of Plame, it is clear now that whatever Libby did, it was done was some serious official blessing. That alters the public narrative that the White House has been telling since this story first broke. [...]

In conclusion: we can bicker over whether this was "authorized declassification" or a "leak" but in all practical matters such arguments are silly. Just because the President had legal authorization to release the document doesn't make this less a leak - it was still selectively released to the press for the purpose of benefiting the administration before it was widely made available to the public.

Immigration Nirvana??? (UPDATED)

In an editorial, The Washington Post this morning that the state of 'nirvana' that the stalled immigration bill represented has been lost. The Post was using Sen. McCain's characterization of legislation almost identical to his own. While I'm not a Buddhist, I have to object to this use of the word nirvana and any implication that this bill was anything close to perfect or enlightened. To be fair, the Post's editorial does recognize that the bill at hand had its imperfections. To use McCain's characterization however was foolish to begin with. Headline: McCain likes his own legislation--yeah's that's real shocking.

Besides the cosmetic flaws, this editorial misses the point that I've been trying to drive home since the deal fell apart. The Post puts all of the blame for the failure of the deal on the Democrats. While procedurally, this may be accurate, this type of finger pointing misses the point. Everybody around that deal is responsible for its failure. The fact that the deal's major proponents failed to account for the conservative amendments that would render many parts of the deal useless while they were 'hammering' out the deal (no pun intended, Tom Delay) is ridiculous. Furthermore, the press conference that announced the 'major breakthrough' was a foolish display of Senatorial back-patting. Strange how the Post misses this aspect of the immigration fiasco.

Another aspect that is lost on the Post's editorial board is the Senators' race for vacation. If this issue and its 'solution' were as important as our leaders' would like us to believe, they could've stayed in DC for a few extra days.

Here's what Minority Leader Reid had to say about the collapse of the compromise:

Republicans are still deeply divided on this issue, and we must protect this fragile compromise from those Senators bent on gutting the bill with hostile amendments. We must also ensure that this comprehensive approach is not lost when the bill reaches conference with the House of Representatives.

It is a test of leadership for President Bush and Senator Frist to stop some Republican Senators from derailing comprehensive reform.

If the bill that the Dems agreed to support is systematically dismantled by Republican amendments, then what's the point?

The role of Sen. Reid and the Democrats in this failure is not lost on me. However, let's not pretend that conservative Republicans had nothing to do with it.

UPDATE: Duke1676 of Migra Matters and I seem to be on the same page.

UPDATE II: Kevin Drum does a great job articulating what happened here:

But Frist's actions made it crystal clear that the standard double cross was in the works: agree on a deal, water it down with amendments, gut it in conference, and then eventually present Democrats with a fait accompli: an up-or-down vote on a conference markup that looks nothing like the one Frist and Reid shook hands on. Democrats would then have the choice of either voting for a harsh and punitive bill they never agreed to or else filibustering it and getting tarred as obstructionists by gleeful Republicans[...]

But despite what the Washington Post thinks, what was at stake here wasn't the compromise bill that Reid and Frist agreed to — a bill that might very well have been a decent step forward. That was just flash for the rubes, and Frist knew it perfectly well. Pro-immigration groups who are complaining about Reid's hardball would be wise to figure this out too.

When someone has suckered you enough times, you demand guarantees before you'll make another deal with him. If all you get is sweet talk, you know the fix is in and you walk away. Reid walked away, and it was the right thing to do.

Friday, April 07, 2006

More On Immigration Deal That Wasn't

Via Time:

Talk about cold feet. Less than 24 hours after the leaders of the Senate's Democratic and Republican families had announced a marriage of convenience on immigration reform, Minority Leader Harry Reid ditched his Republican counterpart Bill Frist at the altar Friday, blocking the bi-partisan bill he had backed the day before. Stunned Senators headed to their home states for a two-week Easter recess, furious over the break-up. "It's a war," said Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter. Even members of Reid's own party, most notably Senator Ted Kennedy, who had worked for five years on an effective amnesty for the country's millions of illegal immigrants, was said to be furious.

Disappointed members of both parties say it was Reid's election-year ambitions that ultimately doomed the immigration bill. The Democrats have a legitimate chance to take back control of the Senate in November, and for a life-long politician like Reid, few things are more important than the opportunity to lead the world's greatest deliberative body, his critics say. A victory for Bill Frist on an issue as nationally charged as immigration would not help the Democrats come election day. "It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for the Democrats not to have an immigration bill," Specter said.

Personally, I would not put all of the blame for the failure on Sen. Reid. The fact that these Senators were willing to declare victory without accounting for conservatiamendmentsnts that were sure to come is ridiculous. Furthermore, pushing through a bill that grants virtual amnesty to most illegal immigrants may not be seen as a victory for Frist by many conservatives, despite the support of the president.

While I've been critical of Harry Reid as minority leader (the Dems managed to pick one of the only people more dull than Tom Daschle to lead them), this may not end up being a bad move for him and the Dems. Consider this analysis from the same TIME article:

In retrospect, however, [the Immigration compromise] may have been too perfect. After initially signing on, Reid decided he might be walking into a trap. Some Republicans wanted to vote on amendments that Reid believed would have essentially picked apart the compromise plan; under one of them, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security would have had to certify that the border was secure before any illegal immigrants could be made legal.

What's more, even if he could defeat the amendments, any bill the Senate passed would have to go into a conference committee with the House which wants to build a wall along much of the U.S.-Mexico border, criminalize all illegal immigrants in the U.S., and dramatically increase the penalties against those who help them, from businesses to churches. Looking several moves ahead in a game of legislative chess, Reid feared that the conference would produce something that looked more like the House bill, which currently has no amnesty provisions for making current illegals citizens, than the Senate version.

Granted, when such a watered down bill came back to the Senate, Reid could still block it by filibustering. But in a election year, Reid knew that could be political suicide, forcing fellow Democrats to vote against a bill Republicans would portray as securing America's broken borders. Those Democrats who were around in the last mid-term election are still smarting from the votes they cast against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, an issue Republicans cashed in handily at the polls. Giving Frist another National Security vote to beat the Democrats with, they feared, was a sure fire way to let Republicans maintain control of the Senate this fall.

This is a rare example of political foresight on the part of the Democratic leadership. While it will still be difficult for the Dems to take the Senate, there's no need to hand them an issue that's getting as much press as this one.

Mitt "Universal Health Care" Romney (UPDATED)

Get ready to hear MA Governor Mitt Romney's name with the phrase "universal health care" in the same sentences, especially from conservative voices.

Via The American Spectator:

Now, to be clear, I do not expect Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to pull off an elaborate mask moments after signing a bill bringing universal health care to the Bay State, thereby revealing himself to be a certain senator from New York. (No, not Schumer.) In point of fact, during a lengthy chat with Romney for a profile that ran in the March edition of TAS, one of the first things the governor said when I broached the topic of health-care reform was, unequivocally, "I oppose the concept of Hillarycare," and then, "Republicans believe in health care, just like Democrats. We just believe the right approach is not a government takeover, but, instead, the application of free market principles."

Nevertheless, when Joe Klein calls Romney's health-care plan "rather remarkable" and Ted Kennedy is asking to be on hand for the signing ceremony and Hillary Clinton herself is weighing in favorably (i.e. not sarcastically frowning or smirking) and the New York Times really, really loves the idea...

And next comes my favorite line of the day:

Well, fiscal conservatives can perhaps be forgiven for instinctively reaching for some garlic bulbs and a flask of holy water.

Apparently ol' Mitt didn't get the "you better appease the right wing if you want the GOP presidential nod" memo.

UPDATE: This is what I'm talking about:

Real quick thought -- yesterday I watched, quite slack-jawed, as Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told Fox and Friends that his proposed universal health care for Kennedy enablers was (something like this) ''taking a Democratic party ideal and implementing it using Republican market values.'' Un-freaking believable. Massachusetts will mandate across the board health care, but the market will ... what? I'll tell you what. The market will cause an explosion in health care costs, just like Medicare did. Duh. And this sumbitch thinks he can win the Republican nomination? That's strike number 2 in the game of Smart.

Immigration Bill Embarrassment (UPDATED)

Just 24 hours after inept Senate Majority Leader Frist announced at a press conference/patting on the back session that the Senate "had a huge breakthrough" on the pending immigration legislation, the purported deal fell apart. Sen. Frist and the key actors in this 'compromise' (McCain, Kennedy, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn etc.) should be embarrassed.

Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."

What's tragic is the complete lack of political savvy on the part of these senators. When a deal on important issues facing the nation has almost been reached, don't call a circus-like press conference to commend each other. If you had a deal that you knew would receive the 60 necessary votes to invoke cloture, then by all means, celebrate and have a presser. Until you're sure that you not going to have to ABANDON the legislation before your precious vacation, however, spare us the press conference BS.

UPDATE: More on the Immigration Reform Bill-Tom Foolery, via CSM:

On Thursday, senators thought they had crafted a compromise that would fly with both camps.

"We have a product that is a good product and has the support of more than 60 senators. It takes care of our needs on the border and deals in a very practical way with what to do with those already in our country," says Sen. Mel Martinez (R) of Florida, the only immigrant currently serving in the Senate. He and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska drafted the compromise plan that produced hopes for a breakthrough Thursday. [...]

"It's important for the American people to know how much bipartisan support there really is for this bill," said Senate majority leader Bill Frist, after a vote to end debate on the bill. The motion, which required 60 votes to pass, failed 38-60.

Add this to the list of Frist failures as Majority leader.

Furthermore, this whole debacle underscores why you don't try to do actual work in an election year.

Congress Breaks Wind...

The next time you hear a politician from Massachusetts talking about our dependence on oil, try not to laugh. With the support of several prominent members of the MA congressional delegation (including Sen. Teddy Bear Kennedy and Rep. Delahunt), the Coast Guard authorization now includes a provision to allow Gov. Mitt Romney "to veto the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm," a "major clean energy source."

Cape Wind Associates refer to the legislation as a "last-minute attack to the project from the Alaskan Delegation ," aka Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens. Cape Wind goes on to say,

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens circulated language on Friday that would allow politics to override the regulatory review of the project, even though more than 17 federal and state agencies have already devoted more than four years of effort into a detailed assessment of its benefits.

The Stevens language unfairly singles out and targets Cape Wind. It is unclear why two Alaskan politicians--first Rep. Don Young and now Senator Ted Stevens--are trying to block a project that has been approved by the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, has received a positive Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and, according to the most recent public opinion survey by the University of Massachusetts and the University of New Hampshire is supported by the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts citizens.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Scooter Throws Bush Under The Bus (UPDATED)

This is the story of the day. Here's what the Washington Post has:

A former top aide to Vice President Cheney told a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity that President Bush authorized him to disclose classified intelligence information about Iraq as a way of rebutting criticism from the agent's husband, according to court papers filed by prosecutors.

However, the former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified that although he gave a reporter sensitive information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in a July 2003 conversation with the president's approval, he did not disclose the CIA employment of Valerie Plame. [...]

...[President Bush and Vice President Cheney] have repeatedly criticized the leaking of sensitive intelligence to the news media, and the administration has ordered investigations of leaks concerning a National Security Agency eavesdropping program and the existence of secret overseas CIA prisons for terrorist suspects. [...]

In the court filing, Fitzgerald says Libby met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, "only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE." The prosecutor adds that Libby testified to the grand jury "that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection."

UPDATE: The Hotline links to this National Journal article regarding the court documents that implicate President Bush in the Scooter Libby - CIA leak case.

McKinney: My Bad

Via AP:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., expressed “sincere regret” Thursday for her altercation with a Capitol police officer, and offered an apology to the House.

“There should not have been any physical contact in this incident,” McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize.”

McKinney’s comments came after the case had been referred to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution.

I'm sure her Democratic colleagues had nothing to do with McKinney's sudden change of heart:

The incident has embarrassed Democrats, including fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus, none of whom have publicly defended her behavior in the March 29 incident.

Rep. Mel Watt, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has had no statement on the incident. The caucus’ silence stands in stark contrast to its investigations of past scuffles between the U.S. Capitol Police and members.

It certainly took too long for her to accept responsibility; regardless, let's hope this story goes away.

Another McCain Pandering Quote

From The Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

"Has John McCain's straight talk express been rerouted to Bull-shit town?"

I do believe so, yes.

'He Who Lives By The Hammer...'

...gets forced out of his leadership position, implicated in corruption scandal, and resigns in disgrace...

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Quote Of The Day


Re: Sen. John McCain -

"I was impressed with his comedy routine and ability to tap dance without music. But I was impressed with nothing else about him," said John Wasniewski of Milwaukee. "He's supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk?"

Indeed. I can't say that I'm not impressed with anything about McCain, but his transparent pandering to the right wing is insulting to anybody who has followed/admired him since his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid.

The quote came from this AP story about McCain's speech to an AFL-CIO group - a speech during which he was booed.

When I Grow Up I Wanna...

When you were growing up, did you want to be president. I know I did.

Apparently, today's elementary school age kids want nothing to do with the most powerful position in the world - that is, if you put any stock into an unscientific survey. I don't, but it's still interesting.

Big ol' h/t: Shakespeare's Sister

H.R. 3127

News Unfiltered has this press release from the office of Rep. Chris Smith regarding H.R. 3127 -The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. It's unclear what this resolution will actually mean for the genocide occurring in Sudan - my gut feeling is that it will absolutely nothing. However, such legislation certainly can't hurt.

Here's the text of H.R. 3127 with the list of all of the cosponsors (Including Rep. Jim Langevin - my district's Rep.).

Here's what the release says about the content of the bill:

While it does not provide an authorization for use of United States forces in Darfur, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act -- the result of eight months of bipartisan collaboration -- contains the following measures:

-- It confers upon the President the authority to provide assistance to reinforce the deployment and operations of an expanded African Union mission with the mandate, size, strength and capacity to protect civilians and humanitarian operations;

-- It encourages the imposition of targeted sanctions against Janjaweed commanders and coordinators;

-- It calls for the extension of the military embargo established pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1591 to include the Government of Sudan;

-- It amends the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 to impose an asset freeze and travel ban against individual perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur;

-- It asserts that existing restrictions imposed against Sudan shall not be lifted until the President certifies to Congress that the Government of Sudan is acting in good faith to: (1) peacefully resolve the crisis in Darfur; (2) disarm, demobilize and demilitarize the Janjaweed; (3) adhere to UN Security Council Resolutions; (4) negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Sudan; (5) cooperate with efforts to disarm and deny safe haven to the Lord's Resistance Army; and (6) fully implement the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement;

-- It amends the International Malaria Control Act to enable the United States Government to continue providing assistance to southern Sudan and other marginalized areas, and lifts restrictions on imports and exports for those same areas; and

-- It adds a section regarding the preemption of State laws that prohibit investment of State pension funds in Sudan.

Note (10:33PM) - I found the story at News Unfiltered, which linked to the press release from U.S. Newswire (see above link).

WTC Memorial Debate

There was an interesting op-ed piece in today's New York Times entitled 'Take Back The Towers'. The piece, written by Dennis Smith, a former NYC Firefighter, offers quite a 'modest proposal':

We've reached a stage where the state and local government, so often the causes of delay, are the only players with the ability to move things forward. It is time for them to invoke their trump card: the takings clause of the United States Constitution. [...]

There is only one way to move forward: Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the City Council should send a home-rule message to Albany and demand the confiscation of the World Trade Center site under the eminent domain clause. At a time when counties and municipalities across America are seizing houses and small businesses to build shopping malls just to increase their tax bases, there are plenty of justifiable reasons included lost tax revenues to demand the return of ground zero.

Is taking the site legally practicable? "As long as the land were used for public purposes such as monuments, museums, or other public buildings, it can certainly be condemned under the U.S. Constitution," says Vicki Been, a professor of real-estate law at New York University Law School. "Even if some (or most) of the land were transferred to private parties to build commercial or residential space, the Supreme Court has held that such economic development is a public purpose."

This would certainly be an interesting and I believe, justifiable, use of the eminent domain clause-- if and only if Bloomberg used it to build a respectful memorial.

What's more important, however, is this aspect of Smith's piece:

For example, the memorial must display the names of those who died at ground zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa., as well as those killed in the 1993 attack on the twin towers. But to the consternation of many (perhaps most) of the 9/11 families, the designers seem determined to place the names haphazardly, and without reference to time or place of death.

The debate over the names points to a larger problem: many in the artistic community seem unable to accept the influence that the families of the victims have among the public. Until the designers understand the role of the families and that they are building over a tomb bodies of hundreds of the 2,749 who died there were never recovered the project will languish. As for the museum, the most obvious setback was the disastrous decision to have it house the controversial International Freedom Center, which was eventually reversed by Gov. George Pataki. But since then, another series of seemingly intractable issues has arisen: the footprint space and exhibition areas have been reduced, there are problems with handicapped access, there have been warnings that crowd movement could be dangerous in an emergency and, most important, Alice Greenwald, the director, has yet to say what specifically the museum will contain.


The alternative waiting for the current players to get their act together makes no sense. Even if the project were to regain momentum, the plan is to build 10 million square feet of commercial space that is not only unneeded but will also mostly fail to rent. The Freedom Tower will be an eyesore as well as a terrorist target, and few will want to work there.

Smith is absolutely right - Ground Zero is the grave site for hundreds and treating it otherwise is shameful and unforgivable. This aspect of the debate over what to do with the WTC site has been constantly overlooked.

Would you want the grave site of your loved ones to be used for commercial space and economic development?

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Boortz: I Was Wr-Wr-Wrong

Pigs are flying and Neal Boortz is apologizing for referring to Rep. Cynthia McKinney as a "ghetto slut." He didn't mention anything about his "welfare drag queen" comment though.

Don't worry though, he's not apologizing to the Media Matters ultra liberal crowd that doesn't like him anyway - he's apologizing to the Congresswoman and his beloved audience.

Media Matters has the clip and the transcript of Boortz's apology. Its actually quite humorous to listen to him acknowledge his own foolishness. Go listen to it and have a laugh.

More Delay Reaction (UPDATED)

Political Wire has a brief interview with DCCC Communications Director Bill Burton about the Delay news. Burton echoes what I wrote in January about TX-22:

PW: Doesn't his stepping down make the district safer for Republicans?

Burton: An open seat is always a better opportunity for the challenging party. Add that to the fact that DeLay actually gave up some of his Republican voters to make surrounding districts more Republican and you have one of the most competitive seats in the country.

UPDATE (4/4/06 - 3:24PM): Chris Cillizza has some more reaction from both sides of the aisle.

UPDATE II: Even conservatives in the blogosphere seem to be relieved with the news of Delay's departure. Speaking of Delay's resignation letter, James Joyner writes:

It’s rather long and sums up his 21-year congressional career and his many accomplishments, real and perceived. It contains no contrition, however, for sowing the seeds of the Abramoff scandal, the K Street Project, and perhaps the loss of the House to the Democrats this November. [...]

Sadly, he sounds remarkably like Cynthia McKinney, except blaming his fall on the evil liberals rather than whitey. One would think he would take some modicum of responsibility for the mess he has created. That he has no regrets and no shame is quite sad, really.

Lest We Forget... (REPOST)

With our preoccupation with the War in Iraq and domestic issues (deficits, immigration, DHS ineptitude etc.) some important issues often get left under the radar. One of these stories is the genocide in Darfur. The situation in Darfur is as dire as ever and has great potential to spiral even further out of control. As the International Crisis Group reported a couple of weeks ago,

The international strategy for dealing with the Darfur crisis primarily through the small (7,000 troops) African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is at a dead end. AMIS credibility is at an all-time low, with the ceasefire it could never monitor properly in tatters. In the face of this, the international community is backing away from meaningful action. The African Union (AU) yielded to Khartoum's pressure on 10 March 2006 and did not ask the UN to put into Darfur the stronger international force that is needed. [...]

The battlefield now extends into eastern Chad, and the escalating proxy war between Sudan and Chad threatens to produce a new humanitarian catastrophe on both sides of the border. Inside Darfur humanitarian access is at its lowest in two years, civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence, and political talks are stalled. Fighting is most intense and civilians are at greatest risk in West Darfur along the Chad-Sudan border, where a major invasion by Chadian rebels appears imminent, and in southern Darfur in the Tawila-Graida corridor.

The Sudanese government bears primary responsibility for the deteriorating situation. It is still making little effort to stabilise matters, rein in militias or secure roads from bandits and rogue elements. In violation of numerous commitments, it still uses offensive air power, supports militias and stokes inter-communal violence as part of its counter-insurgency campaign.

And now, the New York Times reports the following:

NAIROBI, Kenya, April 3 - The government of Sudan has blocked Jan Egeland, the United Nations' top emergency aid official, from visiting the western Darfur region this week, prompting Mr. Egeland to accuse Khartoum of trying to hide the dire conditions there.

The Sudanese government offered various explanations for its decision not to allow Mr. Egeland, the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, to visit Khartoum, the capital, or Darfur beginning Monday.

Jamal Ibrahim, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the visit was merely postponed because it would have coincided with the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. He also said in an interview with the BBC that it would have been unsafe for Mr. Egeland, a Norwegian, to visit Sudan given the recent controversy over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper.

But the United Nations said that the trip had been planned in advance and that the decision by Sudanese authorities not to approve his flight appeared to be politically motivated.

"They said I'm not welcome," Mr. Egeland said in a telephone interview from Rumbek, in southern Sudan, which operates semi-autonomously and did approve the visit. "My interpretation is that they don't want me to see what I was planning to witness in south and west Darfur, which is renewed attacks on the civilian population."

The BBC adds,

The BBC's Jonah Fisher in Sudan says Mr Egeland is known for his willingness to speak his mind and has been a strong critic of the government's role in Darfur's violence.

Mr Egeland said the rebel Sudan Liberation Army also had some responsibility for provoking the latest attacks in the Janana area.

He said the Sudanese government, guerrilla forces and ethnic militia groups were all responsible for the current instability in Darfur, which had put tens of thousands of civilians at risk.

He was due to meet aid workers and speak to people displaced by the conflict.

Mr Egeland also warned that hopes for peace in the south of the country were being damaged by continuing violence.

A peace deal last year officially ended 21 years of conflict between the northern Muslim government and rebels from the Christian and animist south.

This news is disturbing to say the least. What's also disturbing is that thihorrificic situation will continue to remain virtually uncovered by the media. Our government will undoubtedly continue to drag its feet on this issue. Three years is far too long to remain complacent while a genocide occurs.

Try not to chuckle the next time you hear a government official say "we'll never let this happen again."

For more, go here, here, or here.

Note: I reposted this because I feel it may have been overshadowed by the news of the day (Delay especially)

McKinney Throw Down Update


One of the most absurd stories coming out of Washington in the last week or so was that of Rep. McKinney's alleged assault of a capitol police officer. First of all, Capitol Police officers should absolutely be able to recognize each member of Congress, whether or not they have their ID lapel pins on. That being said, one officer's failure to recognize Rep. McKinney is hardly grounds for her to layeth the smackdown.

Craig Crawford has some additional info on the case, including a link to a tape that shows Ms. McKinney moving around the metal detector (unfortunately the tape doesn't show the alleged 'encounter' with the officer).

Also, Hotline On Call has some good stuff on the case, including this from an interview on CNN:

"If the members of the United States Capitol Hill Police who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the members of Congress don't know who they are, then what does that say to us about the kind of security that we have? [...]

But let me just say that the requirement for pages to become a congressional page at age 16 is to know by face and by name the members of the United States Congress. Don't you think that the United States Capitol Police ought to also know the members of Congress by name and by face?"

The full transcript from CNN is here. Not surprisingly, McKinney continues to play the race card. I'll be honest, I'm a white man. I'm in no position to tell Rep. McKinney what is racist and what isn't, certainly when the details of the case are still fuzzy. Here's more from the interview:

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation with Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and her two attorneys, James Myart -- he's in Washington, D.C. -- and Mike Raffauf. He's in Orlando. Congresswoman McKinney did you strike one of those Capitol police officers during this incident on Capitol Hill?

MCKINNEY: Wolf, before you bring on my two attorneys, let me just say for the record -- and this is something that you might want to do a little further investigation on. But I'm sure that if you would look, you would find that even inside the Capitol Hill Police Department, there are problems inside with the treatment of -- or the respect for diversity, let me say.

BLITZER: Because you know there are many black officers on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman?

MCKINNEY: I think you should look at some of the proceedings that are going on right now with black officers and white officers inside Capitol Hill Police Department. And you might reach a different conclusion.

BLITZER: We got a statement from Lou Cannon, the president of the D.C. Chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police. It was in "The Atlanta Journal Constitution." He says, "There was no excessive force here. If she's trying to turn this into a racial issue, people should ask, "Why is she doing this?" This is an insult to all police officers." This is an extremely serious charge you're making, Congresswoman.

JAMES MYART, MCKINNEY'S ATTORNEY: Wolf, may I address that?

BLITZER: Well, let's let the Congresswoman respond. And then I'll bring you in James.

MYART: OK.

MCKINNEY: Well, I haven't made a charge. I just asked you to do a little bit of research.

BLITZER: No, no, no. But you are talking earlier about racial profiling and that there was racism involved.

MCKINNEY: Now, Wolf, you know I didn't say that, so don't twist my words.

BLITZER: Well tell us what you said.

MCKINNEY: Don't even begin to twist my words. And whatever it is that I said is already is on the tape. So you can replay the tape. Now, I think it is probably a good time for you to bring in my attorneys. You have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Myart, but you haven't yet spoken with Mike Raffauf.

BLITZER: I want to speak to both of them. And let me ask Mr. Myart, James, to respond because I know you are anxious to weigh into this suggestion there were other police officers there who were watching all of this. There may have been video, surveillance video, as far as we know as well. Although we haven't seen it. Was there actual physical altercation between the congresswoman and the police officer who asked her to stop?

MYART: Well, let me say this, my conversation with the Capitol Hill police individual at the top I understand it there may very well be a video. I have not seen it and probably won't see it unless there is an actual prosecution of this matter.

But, Wolf, I think it is important for you to understand that this issue is really one that is more national, and that is how black individuals are treated throughout this country by law enforcement officials.In addition to that, you should know that over 259 black police officers of the Capitol Police Force have in fact filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Capitol Police Board. There is division in the ranks over there. These are very serious issues that need to be dealt with.

And Congresswoman McKinney is only one person who has been treated like this when thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands of black people across this country and other people, are racially profiled. If that police officer had known his job, this incident would not even be discussed right now.

No sir, if the Congresswoman hadn't struck a Capitol Police Officer, we would not be discussing this incident. For all I know this particular officer may be a card carrying member of the KKK. However, let's not distort what this is really about - a Congresswoman refusing to accept responsibility for her actions. If she ID'd herself and entered the office building and still felt that she had been racially profiled, she could've written a letter of had her Belafonte-Glover presser. She didn't have to hit the guy.

At the end of the day, this story does not matter. It's a sideshow - a sideshow that will be fun to watch.

Just before I was about to publish this post, I found this story, via CNN: Republicans push to commend cops after McKinney scuffle.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Delay Withdraws (UPDATED)


Tom Delay has withdrawn from his re-election bid in Texas' 22nd district, reports my friend and yours, Chris Matthews. There aren't many details yet, but it appears that the combination of low polling numbers and the promise of a devastatingly brutal campaign have convinced Delay to withdraw. The country will indeed be better off without this man in the House of Representatives. Plenty more later.

Note (Added at 11:11PM): Here's a post from January where I note the irony of Delay's gerrymandering scheme. Yes, I used the same photo - its so appropriate.

UPDATE (11:23PM): Time's Mike Allen has more. This is definitely one of those stories where every media outlet will claim that they have the real scoop and that they broke it first. Personally, I don't care who broke it first. I'm just excited to hear the news.

Also, Hotline On Call rightly adds this:

According to TX law, the party can fill a vacated nomination. It's why the NRCC desperately needed DeLay to win the March primary so they could find the best candidate to hold the GOP-leaning CD, rather than roll the dice with an unknown. The fact that DeLay's resignation announcement comes just three days after ex-aide Tony Rudy copped a plea is going to provide plenty of grist for the scandal mill.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

All The King's Horses...

Here's an example of the good news out of Iraq that the MSM refuses to report...oh wait, nevermind. It's an example of a failed attempt to rebuild that broken country:

BAGHDAD -- A reconstruction contract for the building of 142 primary health centers across Iraq has run out of money, after two years and roughly $200 million, with no more than 20 clinics now expected to be completed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says.

The contract, awarded to U.S. construction giant Parsons Inc. in the flush, early days of reconstruction in Iraq, was expected to lay the foundation of a modern health care system for the country, putting quality medical care within reach of all Iraqis. [...]

Coming with little public warning, the 86 percent shortfall of completions dismayed the World Health Organization's representative for Iraq. "That's not good. That's shocking," Naeema al-Gasseer said by telephone from Cairo. "We're not sending the right message here. That's affecting people's expectations and people's trust, I must say." [...]

Stuart Bowen, the top U.S. auditor for reconstruction, warned in a telephone interview from Washington that other reconstruction efforts may fall short like Parsons'. "I've been consumed for a year with the fear we would run out of money to finish projects," said Bowen, the inspector general for reconstruction in Iraq. [...]

In January, Bowen's office calculated the American reconstruction effort would be able to finish only 300 of 425 promised electricity projects and 49 of 136 water and sanitation projects.

While this certainly isn't shocking, it should serve as a warning to the administration/administration apologists who insist that there is good news in Iraq, it's just not being reported. Of course there are good things going on there. But, we still have 100,000+ troops on the ground and when 1 dies, the American people deserve to know about it. Furthermore, the reconstruction has clearly fallen short of expectations. First of all, its being paid for by American taxpayers, not oil revenues (or any of our 'coalition of the willing' partners, for that matter). The money that has been allocated for reconstruction either isn't being used efficiently or isn't getting where it needs to.

When searching for 'good' news out of Iraq, reconstruction is a logical area to look. However, three years after the outbreak of war the most basic services (electricity, water, health care) are still not being provided.

Obviously the insurgency and sectarian violence has interfered with reconstruction efforts:

"Security degenerated from the beginning. The expectations on the part of Parsons and the U.S. government was we would have a very benign construction environment, like building a clinic in Falls Church," said Earnest Robbins, senior vice president for the international division of Parsons in Fairfax, Va. Difficulty choosing sites for the clinics also delayed work, Robbins said.

Faced with a growing insurgency, U.S. authorities in 2004 took funding away from many projects to put it into building up Iraqi security forces.

"During that period, very little actual project work, dirt-turning, was being done," Bowen said. At the same time, "we were paying large overhead for contractors to remain in-country." Overhead has consumed 40 percent to 50 percent of the clinic project's budget, McCoy said.

All of this leads to a confirmation of an idea that is almost becoming passe: The Bush administration failed (miserably failed would be more accurate) to plan for ANY post-invasion scenarios. But don't expect to hear any such admission from the administration any time soon.

Finally, all this talk of 'good news from Iraq' has gotten me thinking of a story (over a week old by now) that I never blogged on: Laura Ingraham's disgusting comments about the media's coverage of Iraq.

Okay Ingraham, we understand that you recently returned from Iraq and did some first hand reporting. Personally, I respect and applaud you for that.

However, she needs to remove her fat head out of her ass. To return after a relatively short period of time and accuse actual reporters (not talk show radio hosts) of basically hiding in their hotel rooms is shameful. Keith Olbermann did a wonderful job of summing up Ingraham's asinine comments (via Crooks and Liars):

A note about Laura Ingraham's comments. I've known her a long time. I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've know her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. It was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in considerable of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vought, unforgivable in light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopft. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it was not only unforgivable of her; it was desperate and it was stupid."

Quick note about Olbermann: He's been getting a lot of press lately, mainly due to his better ratings and his pissing match with Bill O'Reilly (personally, I think the two are related). I tend to think that Olbermann's ego may be growing along with his ratings. That being said, when he honestly opines about something that he cares about, something that matters, he can send chills up your spine. This was one of those times. Olbermann is absolutely right. Ingraham's deliberate oversight of the sacrifices that the evil MSM's reporters (and their families) have made is disgusting. I could keep going, but I'll spare everyone.

I'll go back to looking for good news out of Iraq...