Back Talk has a post Distinguishing the Insurgency from Sectarian Violence in Iraq. He points out that Bob Woodward's new book and the New York Times are focusing on the number of attacks statistic and ignoring the other available metrics ("the number of troops killed, the number wounded, the number killed by IEDs") that show a different story. His conclusion is that the mostly Sunni insurgency (Iraq v US) is not strengthening but that the Sunni v. Shiite sectarian violence is a lot worse. "Sectarian violence is not caused by the presence of American troops. Instead, even the editors of the New York Times understand that US troops are preventing Sunni-vs.-Shiite slaughter on a massive scale"
He pointed me at the Brookings Institute's Iraqi Index. The latest on is a 57 page PDF and it makes all the statistics on Iraq publicly available. Draw your own conclusions. I mostly agree with Back Talk but I note that the insurgency is not weakening so I don't think we're succeeding and if it is Sunni v. Shiite I'm not sure it's worth the US being in the middle of that.
In addition to hard statistics on security (attacks, troop levels0, infrastructure (number of phones, internet connections, news outlets) and the economy (unemployment, number of doctors, etc.), the index includes a poll of Iraqis from June that shows they are less optimistic, 59% says economic opportunities are poor and 75% say security is poor. 66% strongly disagree with segregation on religious or ethnic lines (so much for the Bidon plan). A poll from January shows 47% approve of attacks on US forces and 87% approve a timeline for US withdrawal. They want us out so they can kill each other, what a wonderful position to be in (and yes we knew this already).
Saturday, September 30, 2006
9/11 Hijackers Video
The (London) Times has the article: Chilling message of the 9/11 pilots. "A video shows two of the world’s most infamous terrorists joking and laughing while filming their ‘death wills’ at Osama Bin Laden’s lair in Afghanistan. The journalist and author Yosri Fouda explains the terrible significance of the new find"
Colin Powell
The Washington Post has a long article Falling on His Sword on Colin Powell's Reign as Secretary of State. It's an excerpt from Karen DeYoung's upcoming book Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell. It's about the UN Speech and his "resignation".
"Powell's irritation at the White House was coupled with a growing anger at the CIA. Right or wrong, at least Bush had willingly shouldered the ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. Powell felt he had done his own duty by privately voicing caution even as he gave the president his full support. But it was increasingly apparent that the intelligence community had been careless with the truth and hence with Powell's most precious commodity -- his credibility with the American people."
"Powell's irritation at the White House was coupled with a growing anger at the CIA. Right or wrong, at least Bush had willingly shouldered the ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. Powell felt he had done his own duty by privately voicing caution even as he gave the president his full support. But it was increasingly apparent that the intelligence community had been careless with the truth and hence with Powell's most precious commodity -- his credibility with the American people."
Republicans Gut Constitution and Freedoms
Miles Mogulescu writes in the Huffington Post Bush and Republican Congress Erase 800 Years of Human Rights. "And now that the Congress has taken away 800 years of fundamental civil liberties, it is poised this weekend to authorize wiretapping without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment. We are witnessing a silent coup by President Bush and the Republican Congress to undo our basic liberties enshrined in the Constitution."
And the reason to vote Democratic in November (even if you think they don't deserve it): "It is likely now that the Supreme Court will strike down these unconstitutional acts of Congress. However, if Bush gets another Supreme Court nomination, and Republicans continue to have enough votes in the Senate to bloc a filibuster, we may see a right wing Supreme Court majority allow our sacred liberties to be destroyed."
And the reason to vote Democratic in November (even if you think they don't deserve it): "It is likely now that the Supreme Court will strike down these unconstitutional acts of Congress. However, if Bush gets another Supreme Court nomination, and Republicans continue to have enough votes in the Senate to bloc a filibuster, we may see a right wing Supreme Court majority allow our sacred liberties to be destroyed."
The Page Scandal
In late 2005, Rep Mark Foley (R-FL) had sexual email and instant messager conversations with a 16 year old male page. Foley resigned yesterday.
It seems Republican House leadership knew of this almost a year ago. "Chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) interviewed Foley last year about some of the contacts with the page. The House clerk, who is also a member of the Board, was also present. Speaker Hastert's office was informed of the interview, but according to GOP leadership sources who spoke to Roll Call, Hastert himself was not informed."
Yesterday, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told the Washington Post, he had learned of Foley's behavior this spring and that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) then. Today Boehner he changed his story saying he couldn't remember if he told Hastert. Think Progress has a timeline.
Apparently at the time, Republicans choose not to punish Foley in any way. Sounds like the Catholic Church doesn't it? Oh and the only Democrat on the House Page Board (Dale Kildee, D-MI), wasn't told about any of this. The House Ethics Committee is now investigating the whole thing, but they've done next to nothing lately.
said Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL Sep 1998 on Bill Clinton: "It's vile, It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." In the House, Foley was one of the foremost opponents of child pornography.
With Foley giving up his seat, it seems the Democrats have a better chance to win another seat in the House.
It seems Republican House leadership knew of this almost a year ago. "Chairman of the House Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) interviewed Foley last year about some of the contacts with the page. The House clerk, who is also a member of the Board, was also present. Speaker Hastert's office was informed of the interview, but according to GOP leadership sources who spoke to Roll Call, Hastert himself was not informed."
Yesterday, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told the Washington Post, he had learned of Foley's behavior this spring and that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) then. Today Boehner he changed his story saying he couldn't remember if he told Hastert. Think Progress has a timeline.
Apparently at the time, Republicans choose not to punish Foley in any way. Sounds like the Catholic Church doesn't it? Oh and the only Democrat on the House Page Board (Dale Kildee, D-MI), wasn't told about any of this. The House Ethics Committee is now investigating the whole thing, but they've done next to nothing lately.
said Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL Sep 1998 on Bill Clinton: "It's vile, It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." In the House, Foley was one of the foremost opponents of child pornography.
With Foley giving up his seat, it seems the Democrats have a better chance to win another seat in the House.
In a New York Times Op-Ed today, Robert Harris compares our present political situation to the fall of ancient Rome...
"In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped."
"In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped."
Blogging Space
Anousheh Ansari's Space Blog including: The Trip Up, The Ride Down. and others worth reading. Nothing profound but more details on space travel than I've ever read and very interesting.
House Discourages Gov't v Religion Lawsuits
This from the Washington Post: "With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."
Friday, September 29, 2006
White Hosue to Abramoff: Don't Put This Stuff in Writing
The Washington Monthly has an email thread between the White House and Abramoff where they talk about overturning an Interior Department decision for the benefit of his tribes but also how this message wasn't supposed to make it into the White House email system. Nice.
Your Phone Records
Ah yes, nice irony: House Chastises Hewlett-Packard Surveillance, Ratifies NSA Surveillance. Oh I'm sorry, I meant disgusting and ridiculous inconsistencies.
Bush's Federal Judges
People for the American Way have released a report Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears that documents "troubling trends identified in earlier reviews have continued as more Bush appointees gain more experience and tenure on the appellate courts – more and more opinions seek, sometimes successfully, to cut back broadly on Americans’ rights under our Constitution and laws."
I haven't read the report yet, but the summary seems similar to others I've read. E.g., this is from page 4:"For example, two controversial Bush appellate judges on two different courts of appeal -- Michael McConnell on the Tenth Circuit and Lavenski Smith on the Eighth Circuit -- cast deciding votes in different cases that significantly restricted individuals’ rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including one decision that struck down a Department of Labor regulation protecting workers." The real question is was the regulation a good one or a bad one?
The problem is, it's very hard to evaluate a judge. It's easy to know if they lean conservative or liberal, but neither is a crime. People can differ on how government should work, in fact the founders had great and famous differences. The Great Compromise that allowed slaves to count as 3/5 of a person for representatives in the House and equal representation for each state in the Senate won with the votes of just 5 states (CT, NJ, DE, MD, NC) of the 13 (MA was split, RI didn't attend and NY and NH lacked a quorum).
It's much harder to know if they are making good decisions or bad. Bush's rhetoric about judges interpreting the law rather than creating it is useless. Judges are supposed to overturn bad laws and many laws are necessarily vague and need interpretation in specific situations. Nevertheless, in the above example, the details they describe (p. 89), seem to suggest it was a bad decision.
I haven't read the report yet, but the summary seems similar to others I've read. E.g., this is from page 4:"For example, two controversial Bush appellate judges on two different courts of appeal -- Michael McConnell on the Tenth Circuit and Lavenski Smith on the Eighth Circuit -- cast deciding votes in different cases that significantly restricted individuals’ rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including one decision that struck down a Department of Labor regulation protecting workers." The real question is was the regulation a good one or a bad one?
The problem is, it's very hard to evaluate a judge. It's easy to know if they lean conservative or liberal, but neither is a crime. People can differ on how government should work, in fact the founders had great and famous differences. The Great Compromise that allowed slaves to count as 3/5 of a person for representatives in the House and equal representation for each state in the Senate won with the votes of just 5 states (CT, NJ, DE, MD, NC) of the 13 (MA was split, RI didn't attend and NY and NH lacked a quorum).
It's much harder to know if they are making good decisions or bad. Bush's rhetoric about judges interpreting the law rather than creating it is useless. Judges are supposed to overturn bad laws and many laws are necessarily vague and need interpretation in specific situations. Nevertheless, in the above example, the details they describe (p. 89), seem to suggest it was a bad decision.
Sandra Day O'Connor Talking
Sandra Day O'Connor has a few interfaces and public appearances lately. I saw her on the News Hour last night. This article seems to sum up the stuff pretty well. She's very busy and is worried about "attacks on an independent judiciary system".
Media Not Reportiing Administration's Abramoff Lies
So I posted yesterday about the new House Report that Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials and of course the media like abc and the New York Times reported on it's facts.
But they don't go back and report that Scott McClellan lied to us, for that check out Think Progress where they quote him on 4 separate instances saying there were 1-2 meetings at a holiday party and "a few staff meetings". That's a bit different than 13 meetings with White House Staff (at least 10 with Rove) for a total of 32.3 hours billed to his clients and 485 phone calls (82 with Rove's office). And yes, McClellan did claim "Well, I did do a check, and I indicated to you exactly what I just told you." I wonder if the "I indicated" was a planned slip or just a transcription error.
But they don't go back and report that Scott McClellan lied to us, for that check out Think Progress where they quote him on 4 separate instances saying there were 1-2 meetings at a holiday party and "a few staff meetings". That's a bit different than 13 meetings with White House Staff (at least 10 with Rove) for a total of 32.3 hours billed to his clients and 485 phone calls (82 with Rove's office). And yes, McClellan did claim "Well, I did do a check, and I indicated to you exactly what I just told you." I wonder if the "I indicated" was a planned slip or just a transcription error.
Blogger Beta
I've switched this blog to be blogger beta. The obvious new feature is Labels which are like Categories or Tags. I'll look into allowing feeds for specific labels so if you just want to subscribe to movie reviews :) For now I'm coping with things that are broken (BlogThis, backtab in Safari). While there's no more wait time to publish an article, it's harder to create the content. If you have a blogspot blog, I recommend not upgrading yet.
Glenn Greenwald on Democrats
Glenn Greenwald writes Beltway Democrats are seriously flawed, but the election is still critically important. Yes the Democrats suck but 2 more years of an unchecked Bush administration would be worse.
"A desire for a Democratic victory is, at least for me, about the fact that this country simply cannot endure two more years of a Bush administration which is free to operate with even fewer constraints than before, including the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney will never face even another midterm election ever again. They will be free to run wild for the next two years with a Congress that is so submissive and blindly loyal that it is genuinely creepy to behold. A desire for a Democratic victory is also about the need to have the systematic lawbreaking and outright criminality in which Bush officials have repatedly engaged have actual consequences, something that simply will not happen if Republicans continue their stranglehold on all facets of the Government for the next two years."
"A desire for a Democratic victory is, at least for me, about the fact that this country simply cannot endure two more years of a Bush administration which is free to operate with even fewer constraints than before, including the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney will never face even another midterm election ever again. They will be free to run wild for the next two years with a Congress that is so submissive and blindly loyal that it is genuinely creepy to behold. A desire for a Democratic victory is also about the need to have the systematic lawbreaking and outright criminality in which Bush officials have repatedly engaged have actual consequences, something that simply will not happen if Republicans continue their stranglehold on all facets of the Government for the next two years."
Cenk Uygur on Democrats
Cenk Uygur states the (maybe it's not so) obvious in The "We Have to Win" Myth. The Democrats are too afraid to even try to win.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six
An Onion article from 4 years ago: Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six.
Rice Lies
Think Progress reports on Rice's Strategy on Darfur: Stay The Course. Yesterday Rice "bragged that the Bush officials are 'bend[ing] every fiber of our being to ease the suffering of people of Darfur.' That is flatly false."
The Huffington Post has Condi Rice: Liar, Stupid, or Both?. "No other logical possibility accounts for her delusional claim to the New York Post that, 'We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.'" There's more but these sentences should do it: "There is a documentary record and it is unambiguous. In fact there are two documents. First, is the strategy itself. Comprehensive and straightforward. Second, is the memo from Clarke to Rice."
The Huffington Post has Condi Rice: Liar, Stupid, or Both?. "No other logical possibility accounts for her delusional claim to the New York Post that, 'We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.'" There's more but these sentences should do it: "There is a documentary record and it is unambiguous. In fact there are two documents. First, is the strategy itself. Comprehensive and straightforward. Second, is the memo from Clarke to Rice."
House Report Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials
House Report Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials
"A House committee has documented hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates, as well as tens of thousands of dollors worth of meals and tickets to sporting events and concerts that were offered to these officials during a three-year period starting in early 2001."
"A House committee has documented hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates, as well as tens of thousands of dollors worth of meals and tickets to sporting events and concerts that were offered to these officials during a three-year period starting in early 2001."
Law Professors' Letter Against the Torture Bill
Text of the Law Professors' Letter Against the Bush-McCain Torture Bill. They mention S.3929 and the bill that passed was S.3930, I don't know how different they were.
Senate Aftermath
I agree with Glenn Greenwald entirely in his article George Bush's vast new powers of detention and interrogation. I think the Democrats blew it and in spite of trying not to look soft, looked soft. I heard Jay Rockefeller's speech and Greenwald is right. If they plan to run as an alternative to Bush and Iraq, then they need to be an actual alternative.
I also agree with Reid's statement.
I also agree with Reid's statement.
We're in a Bad Star Wars Movie
The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
[Senate fills with enormous applause]
Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause
[Senate fills with enormous applause]
Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause
What's Wrong With the Detainee Bill
Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, explains what's wrong with the detainee legistlation (S. 3930) in The White House Warden.
"BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Read the whole article.
"BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Read the whole article.
Amendements to Torture Bill, Failing
TPMmuckraker September 28, 2006 12:21 PM:
"The Senate just killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely along party lines."
"Former torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), portrayed as a "maverick" by earlier bucking the White House on the issue of detainee treatment, voted against the amendment. The White House also opposes the changes the amendment would make to the bill. Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had also challenged the White House over the bill, joined McCain in voting against the amendment."
I don't know what's going on. Kennedy (D-MA) is proposing an amendment that specifies that we can't torture Americans. Really. And it's going to lose. Where am I?
Senator Byrd (D-WV) is propsing a 5 year sunset provision (co-sponsored by Obama (D-IL) and Clinton (D-NY). That means it would expire 3 years into the next president's term?
"The Senate just killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely along party lines."
"Former torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), portrayed as a "maverick" by earlier bucking the White House on the issue of detainee treatment, voted against the amendment. The White House also opposes the changes the amendment would make to the bill. Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had also challenged the White House over the bill, joined McCain in voting against the amendment."
I don't know what's going on. Kennedy (D-MA) is proposing an amendment that specifies that we can't torture Americans. Really. And it's going to lose. Where am I?
Senator Byrd (D-WV) is propsing a 5 year sunset provision (co-sponsored by Obama (D-IL) and Clinton (D-NY). That means it would expire 3 years into the next president's term?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)