Perhaps to no one's surprise, but to the continuing disappointment of millions of progressives who busted their rears and emptied their wallets in 2006 to elect a Democratic Congress with a mandate to end the war, and who contributed with even greater fervor to elect in 2008 a president whose principal early distinction from his primary opponents was his opposition to the war, the House of Representatives yesterday approved a supplemental appropriations bill that continues to fund and arguably escalates the war in the Middle East and Central Asia. The final vote was 368-60, with 9 Republicans joining 51 Democrats in opposition. Some of the reasons to vote no are articulated by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) in her floor speech:
I like you. I voted for you. But you're lying about the torture photographs.
The photographs and video recordings aren't going to enrage the Iraqi people. What will enrage the Iraqi people is that the U.S. government (the military and civilian chain of command) knew about these abuses (or declined to view the evidence of these abuses) and failed to hold the perpetrators accountable.
This is a Hobbesian choice manufactured by the Bush administration.
Either you side with the U.S. military and conceal egregious abuses of Iraqis. Remember, the U.S. military ostensibly invaded to liberate the Iraqi people.
Or you can choose justice for the victims of torture which risks alienating members of the U.S. military.
So before we get too excited by Johnson and Foster's votes on FISA lets take note on their votes for essentially blank check funding of the Iraq war. Emanuel is still bad but Gutierrez does the right thing.
And lest we forget, Jackson, Davis, and Schakwosky are stalwart as ever.
*H R 2642* YEA-AND-NAY 19-Jun-2008 8:04 PM
*QUESTION:* Agree to Senate Amendment to House Amendment No. 1
*BILL TITLE:* Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
I have just discovered this plan, endorsed by 38 Congressional candidates and 4 Senate candidates, nationwide. http://www.responsibleplan.com...
There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq.
I hope that people might contact the Democratic candidates in their districts and urge them to add their names to the list of those endorsing this plan.
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.
We are proud of the work our fine men and women in uniform have accomplished in the field. They have done everything we have asked of them. We are forever indebted to their service and the sacrifice
their families have made.
Nothing would honor their service more than bringing them home.
While I delayed writing "Part II" because of work, family flu and the holidays - it hasn't been easy to write anyway. The truth of the matter is that on policy I have differences in different areas with all four Democratic candidates in the 14th District, Bill Foster included. But politics often involves compromises - the type where you win some, and lose some, and rarely the type where you get met "half-way." I had my disagreements with Howard Dean while actively supporting him for president in 2003/4. Very early this cycle I was one of two authors of the former blog "Feingold for Illinois," but I have substantial disagreements with some of Russ Feingold's positions too. The test of support cannot be that you are 100% in agreement with the candidate you support - there will be too few, if any, you can support. The issue then is about thresholds - do you agree with the candidate on the issues enough to support them?
NDFA (Northsi8de Democracy for America) is sponsoring a forum on
Getting out of Iraq What can one person do?
at
Edgewater Library
1210 W. Elmdale (6000 N. At Broadway)
on Thursday, 13 Dec.
at 7:00 p.m.
Speakers are
Christine Cegelis, who needs no description here, and
Jeff Leys of Voices for Creative Nonviolence
Jeff has taken several trips to Iraq, and the group is Kathy Kelly's group.
Who knew so many people cared about bridge? A nearly record-breaking number of comments piled beneath on Wednesday's column about the U.S. women's bridge team's anti-Bush protest, most of them supporting the ladies.
"We did not vote for Bush," read the sign they held up during the team's victory ceremony at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month.
Commenters on the article pointed out that they feel compelled to do the same when they travel internationally. I know the feeling, kind of. As a teenager and foreign exchange student I had to field inquiries regarding then-President Jimmy Carter and development of the neutron bomb, as well as to accept condolences upon the death of Elvis.
IMO the numbers for yesterday's organized counter-demonstration was accurate at 20.
About 45 rode a schoolbus from DeKalb. On the bus we formed "affinity groups," a buddy system of 3-6 members each so nobody could disappear without some others knowing and taking action. Then we were each given the 1968 version of the "Know Your Rights" pamphlet in case we got questioned, searched &/or arrested.
A bit after 2:30 p.m. we found ourselves in the midst of a very large march from Union Park to Federal Plaza. Numbers matter, I thought, only so far as they put us closer to the moment of "yopp."
Last night I attended a petition turn-in and social event held by the York Township Democratic Organization. Ms. Morganthaler was one of several candidates who attended. These are notes from the event, and from the morning after.
Last Thursday I attended a forum for Rep. Dan Lipinski to talk to veterans about Iraq. I posted about it to Proviso Probe.
The quick summary of observations:
1. Lipinski seemed awkward, even in front of his base.
2. There was little discussion of Iraq at the forum billed as being about Iraq.
3. Lipinski wants credit for wanting to bring the troops home, but he seems them there for half a century or more. And he's OK with this.
4. There are anti-immigration kooks in the district. And they are Lipinski's base.
5. Lipinski never bashes other Democrats. He is upset with Bush for not making more progress on the fence along the U.S. border with Mexico.
The big Obama Iraq speech is now available. I put the full thing below the fold. My opinion is that it is a good speech, but I'd rather see firm action now. The speech is basically a "what I would do as President". It's nice and I agree, but like Matt and Chris point out at OpenLeft, it misses the "what I will do now".
I am an Obama supporter, but I am becoming increasingly frustrated with his campaign. Leading on Iraq means more than just proposing a good strategy for getting the troops out. It means taking actions that will get them out. Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Biden... They have the opportunity to do something more than just blast rhetoric at the White House. They need to do it and do it big. Edwards has been vocal in saying not to fund the war, but because he is out of the Senate it's ring is weaker. (It is so easy to say that it's empty rhetoric because he doesn't actually have to vote on it.) Other Senators and the beltway insiders that actually drive the debate are simply not taking it seriously. Obama and Clinton have the soapbox to effect a real change in Iraq. I wish that they would. I think Obama would be a major, transformational President, but with his campaign strategy I just don't see how he can make this happen. I think that we all better start making our peace with a second President Clinton.
Before Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez resigned last Monday, both his office and the White House lied about it all weekend. It is par for the course for this gang. They lie about everything, including The Surge, as you can see.
You've seriously got to be kidding me. This isn't even history that is very old repeating:
In the debate in Washington, the White House reportedly will ask Congress for an additional $50 billion to expand funding for the war in Iraq, a request that seems likely to prolong troop levels at their current elevated number into the spring of 2008, Durbin said.
Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.
He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."
You know, with a majority party filled with war oppnents like this, it's a wonder Bush doesn't ask for $200 Billion more, an additional 50,000 troops and a pony just because he knows those damn spineless Democrats will give it to him. Durbin is basically saying that no matter how tough Democrats talk, they are going to give in. And he's noting this BEFORE the fight even starts.
I'm going to put the entire text below the fold and highlight only certain portions above, but it is all worth a read. This is a transcript of the speech that David Borris, a Northbrook Resident and anti-war activist, delivered at the Town Hall Meeting organized by the Iraq Summer campaign. In it he pleads with Mark Kirk to restore honesty and sanity to the handling of the Iraq war.
If the first casualty of war is truth, then this wars casualties began long before the first shot was fired. Truth went out the window when Mark Kirk swore in October of 2002 that he had "SEEN THE EVIDENCE - been to the war room-understood things he could not disclose to his constituents. And truth has yet to return.
I have a deep and abiding faith in the wisdom of the American people to make just and sound decisions if we just tell them the truth.
No more lies - no more happy talk. No more wishing and hoping it will just magically get better. No more pretending that "victory" - whatever that means, is just around the corner - if we just kill enough of "them"- whoever "they" are, then stability and security will flourish.
No - it is time for our Congressman to level with us, for this administration to level with the American people.
I have begun to discern a pattern to Mark Kirk's silence on the greatest issue of the past few years: to be or not to be in Iraq.
In my district over the past year, I've been allotted two public forums by Mr. Kirk (both on the same day, March 10, in the village of Wilmette). But 1) Iraq was not debated unless a constituent forced the subject on Mr. Kirk by him- or herself. If I rack my brains, 2) I don't believe I've been notified of forums in any other village, nor of any districtwide forum. 3) I don't recall any public forum, anywhere, ever scheduled by Mr. Kirk primarily on the subject of Iraq.
Take a look at the issue of Mark Kirk's June 2007 "10th District News." Mr. Kirk describes three town meetings. Since I live in Wilmette, I was notified of Wilmette's March 10 forums. However, I was not notified of Mount Prospect's or Lake Forest's meetings.
I was conveniently denied a chance to express my views concerning Iraq to a larger district audience.
However, the Iraq Summer Campaign is coming to the rescue. It's bringing constituents together in a large public forum today (Aug. 28) at 7 p.m. A districtwide meeting on Iraq will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, 933 Skokie Blvd, Northbrook.
It will be moderated by Aaron Freeman, long-time Chicago-based political activist and commentator on National Public Radio. Kirk, whose home base is Northbrook, has been invited to attend.
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, 9th District, also is coming. She'll report on her August 2007 trip to Iraq. She'll give an update on the current status of our troops and the Iraq war.
Mr. Kirk's presence is especially critical since he is one of the "secret 11" Republican Congressmen who went to President Bush in the spring of 2007 to warn about the perils of supporting the Iraq war.
As for today's forum, and for our affairs of state: let us speak.
[For those congenitally unable to bookmark a conservative publication.]
As I've described here before, American Conservative Magazine is a sanctuary of paleo-conservatives, meaning you mostly won't think you've entered another dimension to visit its online site.
The July 30 issue contains a couple of stinkers. I found the update on Rick Santorum's activities boh-ring and their current immigration article, "Getting Immigration Right," by John O'Sullivan, contains the usual warnings of the dangers of multiculturalism as well as...
Japan enjoyed one of the highest economic growth rates in the world for 35 years with no immigration whatsoever. Since the existence of a thing is absolute proof of its possibility (as Bertrand Russell once pointed out), this demonstrates that a growing economy is possible without immigration. The trick is achieved by a combination of investment and innovation.
...without once mentioning how much the Japanese government propped up the system. But deep into the article, he finally does get to the heart of the matter:
Since Hispanics currently vote Democrat by roughly a two-to-one margin, admitting more Hispanic immigrants to residence and citizenship would add millions more votes overall to the Democrat column.
So Peter Roskam went to Iraq (warning link is some serious MSM fawning). You might think that seeing things up close and really getting a sense of what the Iraqi people and the American soldiers are going through.
"Had we been there even 90 days ago, we were told in no uncertain terms we would have been assassinated," Roskam said.
But Roskam isn't a member of the reality-based community.
"Symbolically, it was very important."
Still the 30-pound body armor and helmets Roskam and the other legislators wore were a reminder the area still is far from safe. But the newly elected representative contends the issues plaguing Iraq are complex but need to be addressed by U.S. government.
"The question on Iraq is where do you go from here?" Roskam said. "I think we've got to be very measured on the notion of withdrawal."
Roskam seems to be blind to what every one else can see. Iraq is a quagmire. Iraq is in a civil war that the United States can't get it out of (and never mind that we put them there to begin with). Maybe that's why he's hitched his wagon to John McCain's star, McCain can't seem to see what's happening in Iraq either. No, Roskam just sees what he wants to see, never mind the reality.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) visited Iraq with a bipartisan delegation two weekends ago, where he met with Petraeus and toured an open-air market in Ramadi. His first trip to the war zone didn't radically change his point of view, said Roskam, who remains opposed to setting timetables for troop withdrawal.
He said he's under no illusion that he could have walked safely through the market without a heavy Marine escort.
But Roskam also believes that the market tour couldn't have happened at all without the stepped-up U.S. military presence in Ramadi, capital of Anbar province and a stronghold of Sunni insurgents.
The people of IL-6 deserve better. They deserve someone who can see the truth when it is presented to them. They deserve someone other than Peter Roskam. Hopefully there is a Democrat in the 6th who can offer it to them.
Since the US Senate has in its wisdom laid the groundwork for a war on Iran on the extremely thin grounds of an unbalanced and gullible NYT story, it is worth pondering the degree to which we are being spun once again by shadowy forces whose salaries we are paying!
Sertan (a PJAK terrorist): "Three months ago, by using radio-controlled mines (IEDs) we killed 13 to 14 Iranian soldiers". Kurdish terrorists hide in the U.S. protected areas of North-Eastern Iraq. From there, they send fighters over the border into Iran and attack Iranians. In the past two years, they have killed over 200 Iranians."
And it seems that the head of PEJAK, Abdel Rahman Haj-Ahmedi, is telling interviewers that he enjoys good relations with U.S. generals who "completely overlook our activities."
