The Stepp family in 1966. Ben; Ken; Vivian; John; Jim, Sr.; and Jim Stepp, Jr.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
34,000 Iraqi Death Toll in '06.
The New York Times reports that the cost of "staying the course" costs a lot of Iraqi lives:
"Iraqi Death Toll Exceeded 34,000 in '06, U.N. Says
"Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud/Reuters
"SABRINA TAVERNISE
"Published: January 17, 2007
"BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 — The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure of the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.
"The report was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using reports from morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq, and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.
"Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the trajectory of the war, and are extremely delicate for both Iraqi and American officials. Both follow the tallies, but neither will release them.
An Iraqi government spokesman called the count exaggerated, and said that it had been obtained using “incorrect sources.” Though the government closely tracks deaths through the Interior and Health Ministries, he said it did not have a system in place for compiling a comprehensive figure.
"Despite the criticism from the Iraqi government, the United Nations said it used only official sources, most of which relied on counts of death certificates. A vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered, at least to local authorities, so that Iraqis can prove inheritance and receive government compensation. Some deaths still go unreported, however, and the United Nations tally may in fact be lower than the true number of deaths nationwide.
"As death tolls have risen, the lack of security has become the single most important barrier to success of the American enterprise here. The numbers of dead, at least at the Baghdad morgue, are running at double their number in 2005.
"Underscoring the challenge, even as the United Nations released its figure — 34,452 deaths, a number that does not yet include the December totals from all provinces — at least 70 more Iraqis were killed on Tuesday when a series of bomb blasts struck a largely Shiite university in northeast Baghdad.
"After almost four years of war, in which Americans have focused largely on fighting an elusive enemy — Sunni militants and, more recently, Shiite death squads — military commanders say keeping Iraqis alive has now moved to the center of the new strategy proposed by President Bush.
"For many Iraqis, the pledge comes too late. The numbers reported by the United Nations were more than tenfold the number of American deaths for the entire war. As previous attempts to secure Baghdad have failed, tens of thousands of middle-class Iraqis have given up and fled the country. Those who remain are becoming increasingly radicalized as the violence draws them into a cycle of revenge.
"The United Nations report said an average of 94 Iraqis died every day in 2006, with about half the deaths occurring in the capital. A majority died from gunshot wounds, in execution-style killings that are a common method for death squads, both Sunni and Shiite. The report registered the most lethal month as October, with deaths declining slightly in November and December.
"Violence between Sunnis and Shiites, virtually unheard of in the early years of the war, has become the main driver of the tallies.
"Military commanders have acknowledged that they underestimated the seriousness of the sectarian killings, which took off after the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra last year drew Shiites into the war. Before that, Sunni militants did most of the killing. Now, the capital is mired in violence, as the two groups fight bitterly over territory.
In the shootings, bodies surface days later in sewers and garbage dumps. The report said that most unidentified bodies were found in six neighborhoods of Baghdad, three Sunni — Dora, Rashidiya and Adhamiya — and three Shiite — Sadr City, New Baghdad and the hardscrabble slum of Shuala.
“It’s important to identify the root cause of the violence,” said Gianni Magazzeni, chief of the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq’s Human Rights Office, which compiled the report. “Lack of accountability for crimes generates the urge for justice through armed groups.”
"One result, described by the report, is a society in collapse. At least 470,094 Iraqis have fled their homes since February. The number of displaced Iraqis was the highest in the embattled Sunni province of Anbar, where 10,105 families fled, followed by Karbala in the south, Baghdad, and Dohuk in the north.
"Iraqi government forces also suffered painful losses. The report cited an Interior Ministry figure of 12,000 Iraqi security forces killed, both the Army and the police, since 2003.
"The general breakdown in order has led to a wave of crime, and many of the killings were part of that."
2 Next Page » "
"Iraqi Death Toll Exceeded 34,000 in '06, U.N. Says
"Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud/Reuters
"SABRINA TAVERNISE
"Published: January 17, 2007
"BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 — The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure of the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.
"The report was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using reports from morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq, and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.
"Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the trajectory of the war, and are extremely delicate for both Iraqi and American officials. Both follow the tallies, but neither will release them.
An Iraqi government spokesman called the count exaggerated, and said that it had been obtained using “incorrect sources.” Though the government closely tracks deaths through the Interior and Health Ministries, he said it did not have a system in place for compiling a comprehensive figure.
"Despite the criticism from the Iraqi government, the United Nations said it used only official sources, most of which relied on counts of death certificates. A vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered, at least to local authorities, so that Iraqis can prove inheritance and receive government compensation. Some deaths still go unreported, however, and the United Nations tally may in fact be lower than the true number of deaths nationwide.
"As death tolls have risen, the lack of security has become the single most important barrier to success of the American enterprise here. The numbers of dead, at least at the Baghdad morgue, are running at double their number in 2005.
"Underscoring the challenge, even as the United Nations released its figure — 34,452 deaths, a number that does not yet include the December totals from all provinces — at least 70 more Iraqis were killed on Tuesday when a series of bomb blasts struck a largely Shiite university in northeast Baghdad.
"After almost four years of war, in which Americans have focused largely on fighting an elusive enemy — Sunni militants and, more recently, Shiite death squads — military commanders say keeping Iraqis alive has now moved to the center of the new strategy proposed by President Bush.
"For many Iraqis, the pledge comes too late. The numbers reported by the United Nations were more than tenfold the number of American deaths for the entire war. As previous attempts to secure Baghdad have failed, tens of thousands of middle-class Iraqis have given up and fled the country. Those who remain are becoming increasingly radicalized as the violence draws them into a cycle of revenge.
"The United Nations report said an average of 94 Iraqis died every day in 2006, with about half the deaths occurring in the capital. A majority died from gunshot wounds, in execution-style killings that are a common method for death squads, both Sunni and Shiite. The report registered the most lethal month as October, with deaths declining slightly in November and December.
"Violence between Sunnis and Shiites, virtually unheard of in the early years of the war, has become the main driver of the tallies.
"Military commanders have acknowledged that they underestimated the seriousness of the sectarian killings, which took off after the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra last year drew Shiites into the war. Before that, Sunni militants did most of the killing. Now, the capital is mired in violence, as the two groups fight bitterly over territory.
In the shootings, bodies surface days later in sewers and garbage dumps. The report said that most unidentified bodies were found in six neighborhoods of Baghdad, three Sunni — Dora, Rashidiya and Adhamiya — and three Shiite — Sadr City, New Baghdad and the hardscrabble slum of Shuala.
“It’s important to identify the root cause of the violence,” said Gianni Magazzeni, chief of the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq’s Human Rights Office, which compiled the report. “Lack of accountability for crimes generates the urge for justice through armed groups.”
"One result, described by the report, is a society in collapse. At least 470,094 Iraqis have fled their homes since February. The number of displaced Iraqis was the highest in the embattled Sunni province of Anbar, where 10,105 families fled, followed by Karbala in the south, Baghdad, and Dohuk in the north.
"Iraqi government forces also suffered painful losses. The report cited an Interior Ministry figure of 12,000 Iraqi security forces killed, both the Army and the police, since 2003.
"The general breakdown in order has led to a wave of crime, and many of the killings were part of that."
2 Next Page » "
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Newconservatism explained.
The neoconservatism of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Hal Rogers is explained in The New American magazine:
"A look at the roots of neoconservatism and the reasons why this deadly movement must be rejected.
"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
— Irving Kristol
"The above definition has joyfully and repeatedly been cited by many defenders of neoconservatism. They consider their branch of political thought a benign movement even though its clout has been recognized as dominant over the Bush administration. Kristol likely hopes that everyone who learns of his quip will emit a slight chuckle and remain convinced that neoconservatism is no threat to the nation.
"But Irving Kristol, who has willingly accepted the title of "Godfather of Neoconservatism," earlier produced a more incisive definition of the movement he helped to create. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea, he wrote:
"It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism. * * * "
"A look at the roots of neoconservatism and the reasons why this deadly movement must be rejected.
"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
— Irving Kristol
"The above definition has joyfully and repeatedly been cited by many defenders of neoconservatism. They consider their branch of political thought a benign movement even though its clout has been recognized as dominant over the Bush administration. Kristol likely hopes that everyone who learns of his quip will emit a slight chuckle and remain convinced that neoconservatism is no threat to the nation.
"But Irving Kristol, who has willingly accepted the title of "Godfather of Neoconservatism," earlier produced a more incisive definition of the movement he helped to create. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea, he wrote:
"It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism. * * * "
Rogers supports troop surge in Iraq.
Republican Congressman Hal Rogers supports Bush's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, as reported by the San Jose Mercury:
"Ky. Republicans generally back Bush's plan; Democrats skeptical
"BRUCE SCHREINER
"Associated Press
"LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Republicans in Kentucky's congressional delegation generally supported President Bush's plan to dispatch an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to try to quell unending violence in Iraq.
The state's two House Democrats were more skeptical, expressing doubts whether the strategy will work.
"Unfortunately it's more of the same," said U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, a Democrat from Kentucky's 6th District. "We've had other instances of troop surges since we've been involved in this undertaking, and none of them have been successful in the long term."
"Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate's top GOP leader, said a quick withdrawal of American forces would guarantee "a strategic failure" in Iraq and across the region. * * *
"Bush spoke to the nation in a prime-time address Wednesday night to promote his latest strategy in the Iraq war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops. * * *
"U.S. Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers, a Republican representing Kentucky's 5th District, said if the "short-term" troop boost gives Iraqis more time to stop the violence, then "we have to try."
"We don't have much choice," Rogers said. "The stakes for America are too great. The Iraqis must know they are responsible for their own security, and now is the time. I am anxious for the return of America's sons and daughters to our shores." * * *
"The state delegation's newest member, freshman Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, called Bush's plan an "acceleration of an ill-conceived occupation."
"It is simply unacceptable to ask 20,000 additional soldiers for the willingness to give their lives when President Bush won't give them a strategy for success," said Yarmuth, who represents the 3rd District.
"Chandler chided Bush for "mixing the war on terror and what amounts to a civil war in one country," and said American soldiers have become a "referee in a police action."
"And at the end of the day, it's up to Iraqis themselves to fix what is clearly a political problem between tribal elements in this country much more than it is a war on terror," Chandler said."
"Ky. Republicans generally back Bush's plan; Democrats skeptical
"BRUCE SCHREINER
"Associated Press
"LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Republicans in Kentucky's congressional delegation generally supported President Bush's plan to dispatch an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to try to quell unending violence in Iraq.
The state's two House Democrats were more skeptical, expressing doubts whether the strategy will work.
"Unfortunately it's more of the same," said U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, a Democrat from Kentucky's 6th District. "We've had other instances of troop surges since we've been involved in this undertaking, and none of them have been successful in the long term."
"Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate's top GOP leader, said a quick withdrawal of American forces would guarantee "a strategic failure" in Iraq and across the region. * * *
"Bush spoke to the nation in a prime-time address Wednesday night to promote his latest strategy in the Iraq war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops. * * *
"U.S. Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers, a Republican representing Kentucky's 5th District, said if the "short-term" troop boost gives Iraqis more time to stop the violence, then "we have to try."
"We don't have much choice," Rogers said. "The stakes for America are too great. The Iraqis must know they are responsible for their own security, and now is the time. I am anxious for the return of America's sons and daughters to our shores." * * *
"The state delegation's newest member, freshman Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, called Bush's plan an "acceleration of an ill-conceived occupation."
"It is simply unacceptable to ask 20,000 additional soldiers for the willingness to give their lives when President Bush won't give them a strategy for success," said Yarmuth, who represents the 3rd District.
"Chandler chided Bush for "mixing the war on terror and what amounts to a civil war in one country," and said American soldiers have become a "referee in a police action."
"And at the end of the day, it's up to Iraqis themselves to fix what is clearly a political problem between tribal elements in this country much more than it is a war on terror," Chandler said."
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Legal Question?
Do you have a Legal Question? If so, click http://www.kennethstepp.blogspot.com 24/7.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Lexington Herald-Leader editorial.
The Lexington Herald-Leader endorsed KY-5 Hal Rogers for Congress last election, but now they question the "stay the course" in the U.S. military occupation of Iraq that Hal Rogers and the Republicans support and advocate. The following is an editorial from the Lexington Herald-Leader Posted Fri. Jan 12, 2007:
"Posted on Fri, Jan. 12, 2007
email this print this
"Insanity of war
"Not much hope Bush's new plan will succeed
"President Bush's new plan for Iraq is to do even more of what he admits isn't working.
"Bush's new plan is to require more sacrifice from the military. He's not sending a surge of fresh new troops. He can't; our fraying military has none to spare. He's keeping exhausted troops in Iraq longer and returning them sooner.
"Bush's new plan for Iraq is to talk tough to Iran, shake his Patriot missiles and refuse to engage in diplomacy or involve Syria in regional discussions.
"Bush's new plan for Iraq is to pretend that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government's first loyalty isn't to the Shiite militias that want to exterminate the Sunni minority.
Bush's new plan for Iraq won't work any better than all his old plans because it's not much different.
"Supporters of the president's policies demand that critics come up with something better. But the tragic truth is there is no good solution. This war was conceived in deceit and arrogance by people who had absurdly unrealistic expectations. It can't be fixed.
"Maybe if the initial occupation force had been large enough and the planning better, we wouldn't be stuck in this disaster. But the forces of sectarian hatred and violence that have been unleashed can't be stuffed back into the bottle by more violence or force.
"There is no military solution, and the president is too stubborn to try diplomatic or political avenues.
"Bush may have brought the Iraqi people to the point where their only option is a bloodbath now or a bloodbath later. The damage he has done to our country's standing is stunning. And an all-out war between Sunnis and Shiites in the oil-rich Mideast could devastate the world's economy.
"In his speech to the nation, Bush said his commitment to the new plan is not open-ended and that the Iraqi government must achieve certain goals.
"Congress should put dates certain on those goals. If there's not quick and solid progress, Congress should cut off funding for the war. That's probably the only way Bush will alter the disastrous course he's put us on in Iraq.
"One popular definition of insanity is expecting different results from doing the same thing.
The president told the nation that his new plan would result in another "bloody and violent year in Iraq," which isn't new, either.
"The brave volunteers who defend us deserve better than to be sacrificed to Bush's stubborn pride."
Next time, vote for an "end the war" candidate for U.S. House, not for a "stay the course" candidate like the Herald-Leader endorsed for the Kentucky Fifth District.
"Posted on Fri, Jan. 12, 2007
email this print this
"Insanity of war
"Not much hope Bush's new plan will succeed
"President Bush's new plan for Iraq is to do even more of what he admits isn't working.
"Bush's new plan is to require more sacrifice from the military. He's not sending a surge of fresh new troops. He can't; our fraying military has none to spare. He's keeping exhausted troops in Iraq longer and returning them sooner.
"Bush's new plan for Iraq is to talk tough to Iran, shake his Patriot missiles and refuse to engage in diplomacy or involve Syria in regional discussions.
"Bush's new plan for Iraq is to pretend that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government's first loyalty isn't to the Shiite militias that want to exterminate the Sunni minority.
Bush's new plan for Iraq won't work any better than all his old plans because it's not much different.
"Supporters of the president's policies demand that critics come up with something better. But the tragic truth is there is no good solution. This war was conceived in deceit and arrogance by people who had absurdly unrealistic expectations. It can't be fixed.
"Maybe if the initial occupation force had been large enough and the planning better, we wouldn't be stuck in this disaster. But the forces of sectarian hatred and violence that have been unleashed can't be stuffed back into the bottle by more violence or force.
"There is no military solution, and the president is too stubborn to try diplomatic or political avenues.
"Bush may have brought the Iraqi people to the point where their only option is a bloodbath now or a bloodbath later. The damage he has done to our country's standing is stunning. And an all-out war between Sunnis and Shiites in the oil-rich Mideast could devastate the world's economy.
"In his speech to the nation, Bush said his commitment to the new plan is not open-ended and that the Iraqi government must achieve certain goals.
"Congress should put dates certain on those goals. If there's not quick and solid progress, Congress should cut off funding for the war. That's probably the only way Bush will alter the disastrous course he's put us on in Iraq.
"One popular definition of insanity is expecting different results from doing the same thing.
The president told the nation that his new plan would result in another "bloody and violent year in Iraq," which isn't new, either.
"The brave volunteers who defend us deserve better than to be sacrificed to Bush's stubborn pride."
Next time, vote for an "end the war" candidate for U.S. House, not for a "stay the course" candidate like the Herald-Leader endorsed for the Kentucky Fifth District.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
American torture.
Kenneth Stepp stands against torture.
"From Tom Head
"American Torture
"An Overview of American Torture in the War on Terror
"Torture is barbaric, dehumanizing, ineffective, and condemned by both U.S. and international human rights law. So why is the Bush administration practicing it?
"Public domain. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
"Side view of Satar Jabar, an accused carjacker who was tortured at Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003. Jabar was hooded, placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers and genitals, and told that he would be electrocuted if he stepped off the box.
"Torture After 9/11
"After the September 11th attacks, television and op-ed pundits immediately started calling for an end to existing U.S. human rights and civil liberties standards. Perhaps most famously, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called for the use of court-ordered "torture warrants." Although the Bush administration did not immediately state a willingness to use torture, it would begin to quietly do so.
"Read more: Detainee Torture: Definitions, Reports and Legislation on Detainee Torture
American Torture Techniques
"If you're an American president who wants to promote a pro-torture policy, there are two rules you must follow. First, call it something else. Second, don't leave a mark. The Bush administration's torture policies follow these rules admirably.
"Read more: American Torture Techniques
"Extraordinary Rendition
"Outsourcing isn't just for sweatshop labor anymore. President Bush continued a policy, initiated by President Clinton (see item #3), in which the United States could have torture practiced on prisoners without actually violating U.S. law. It's very simple, really: Ship a prisoner off in the dead of night to an allied country where torture is practiced, ask that the prisoner be interrogated but don't ask how, and then collect any information that is gathered as a result of those unspecified interrogation methods.
"Read more: Extraordinary Rendition and the Outsourcing of Torture
"Is Torture Justified?
"The most common argument used to defend the use of torture is that it saves lives. Torture advocates frequently email me asking: Whose side are you on, anyway? Do you want to see Americans killed by terrorists whose schemes might have been revealed under use of torture? No, I don't, but we need to ask ourselves what kind of country we're trying to save. If we're going to argue that we need to sacrifice things like free speech, privacy, prohibitions against torture, and so forth, all in the name of safety--to transform, in other words, into something more like a dictatorship--then proponents should, at the very least, be able to demonstrate that the drastic measures they're screaming for actually work more effectively and often than current measures. In the case of torture, they can't--because it doesn't. Torture is an excellent way to alienate potential informants and generate false leads, but has never been shown to reliably extract useful information."
"From Tom Head
"American Torture
"An Overview of American Torture in the War on Terror
"Torture is barbaric, dehumanizing, ineffective, and condemned by both U.S. and international human rights law. So why is the Bush administration practicing it?
"Public domain. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
"Side view of Satar Jabar, an accused carjacker who was tortured at Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003. Jabar was hooded, placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers and genitals, and told that he would be electrocuted if he stepped off the box.
"Torture After 9/11
"After the September 11th attacks, television and op-ed pundits immediately started calling for an end to existing U.S. human rights and civil liberties standards. Perhaps most famously, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called for the use of court-ordered "torture warrants." Although the Bush administration did not immediately state a willingness to use torture, it would begin to quietly do so.
"Read more: Detainee Torture: Definitions, Reports and Legislation on Detainee Torture
American Torture Techniques
"If you're an American president who wants to promote a pro-torture policy, there are two rules you must follow. First, call it something else. Second, don't leave a mark. The Bush administration's torture policies follow these rules admirably.
"Read more: American Torture Techniques
"Extraordinary Rendition
"Outsourcing isn't just for sweatshop labor anymore. President Bush continued a policy, initiated by President Clinton (see item #3), in which the United States could have torture practiced on prisoners without actually violating U.S. law. It's very simple, really: Ship a prisoner off in the dead of night to an allied country where torture is practiced, ask that the prisoner be interrogated but don't ask how, and then collect any information that is gathered as a result of those unspecified interrogation methods.
"Read more: Extraordinary Rendition and the Outsourcing of Torture
"Is Torture Justified?
"The most common argument used to defend the use of torture is that it saves lives. Torture advocates frequently email me asking: Whose side are you on, anyway? Do you want to see Americans killed by terrorists whose schemes might have been revealed under use of torture? No, I don't, but we need to ask ourselves what kind of country we're trying to save. If we're going to argue that we need to sacrifice things like free speech, privacy, prohibitions against torture, and so forth, all in the name of safety--to transform, in other words, into something more like a dictatorship--then proponents should, at the very least, be able to demonstrate that the drastic measures they're screaming for actually work more effectively and often than current measures. In the case of torture, they can't--because it doesn't. Torture is an excellent way to alienate potential informants and generate false leads, but has never been shown to reliably extract useful information."
Rogers votes against 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Your KY-05 Congressman Hal Rogers voted against the 9/11 Commission Recommendations. A lot of Republicans voted for it. It would use anti-terror money for fighting terror, and not just for "no bid" contracts for Hal Rogers' friends. It would not be putting a lot of anti-terror specialists in Louisville and Tennessee. It doesn't have any "no bid contracts" for Corbin. This report from bluegrassreports.
"House Easily Passes First Piece Of 100-Hour Program -- Anti-Terror Legislation
The House has easily passed, by a 299-128 margin, legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations. It was the first vote on the Democratic majority's 100-hour program.
"While both U.S. Reps. Ben Chandler (D) and John Yarmuth (D) voted for the resolution, the other four (Republican) members of the Kentucky House delegation voted against it.
It's shameful how truly out-of-touch Hal Rogers, Geoff Davis, Ed Whitfield and Ron Lewis are with their rank partisanship and their votes against implementing the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. Absurd.
"By the way, I'm certain these Bluegrass wingnuts will be happily supporting the Bush Administration's call for an additional 21,500 troops to go into Iraq (17,500 for Baghdad and 4,000 for Anbar Province)."
"House Easily Passes First Piece Of 100-Hour Program -- Anti-Terror Legislation
The House has easily passed, by a 299-128 margin, legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations. It was the first vote on the Democratic majority's 100-hour program.
"While both U.S. Reps. Ben Chandler (D) and John Yarmuth (D) voted for the resolution, the other four (Republican) members of the Kentucky House delegation voted against it.
It's shameful how truly out-of-touch Hal Rogers, Geoff Davis, Ed Whitfield and Ron Lewis are with their rank partisanship and their votes against implementing the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. Absurd.
"By the way, I'm certain these Bluegrass wingnuts will be happily supporting the Bush Administration's call for an additional 21,500 troops to go into Iraq (17,500 for Baghdad and 4,000 for Anbar Province)."
21,500 troops not an escalation, says Bush' Secretary.
21,500 more troops to Iraq is not an escalation, claims Bush' Secretary. You voted to "stay the course" when you re-elected your Republican Congressman last fall, now you have 21,500 additional U.S. troops going to Iraq. How is it going? How is it working out? How do you like "staying the course"? Will you be voting to "stay the course" on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq in 2008? How many American boys and girls will be killed in Iraq because you voted to "stay the course"? This is reprinted from the Daily Kos:
"Rice: It's Not An Escalation
"by BarbinMD
"Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:00:22 PM PST
"Good news today from Capitol Hill. The addition of 21,500 troops to be sent to Iraq is not, I repeat, not an escalation. So said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her testimony today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"Hagel: I think this speech, given last night by this President, represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out.
"Rice: I think that I don't see it and the President doesn't see it as an escalation. What he sees...
"Hagel: Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation? Would you call it a decrease? And billions of dollars more?
"Rice: I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad.
"So there you have it. Enough talk about escalating the war, because it's an augmentation. And how long will this boob-job last?
"Biden: If it's not open-ended, does that mean you're prepared, if they fail, to pull out? To terminate? What is the accountability mechanism?
"Rice: Senator, I think it's best to leave the President's words as the President's words.
"Indeed, heed the President's words...mission accomplished, stay the course, absolutely, we're winning."
There you have it, you voted for it, and you got it. "Stay the course" means escalating the U.S. led war in the Middle East. "Stay the course" means more U.S. troops to Iraq. "Stay the course" means a U.S. invasion of Syria. "Stay the course" means a U.S. bombing and invasion of Iran. How is it working out? Had enough? Vote Democratic.
"Rice: It's Not An Escalation
"by BarbinMD
"Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:00:22 PM PST
"Good news today from Capitol Hill. The addition of 21,500 troops to be sent to Iraq is not, I repeat, not an escalation. So said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her testimony today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"Hagel: I think this speech, given last night by this President, represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out.
"Rice: I think that I don't see it and the President doesn't see it as an escalation. What he sees...
"Hagel: Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation? Would you call it a decrease? And billions of dollars more?
"Rice: I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad.
"So there you have it. Enough talk about escalating the war, because it's an augmentation. And how long will this boob-job last?
"Biden: If it's not open-ended, does that mean you're prepared, if they fail, to pull out? To terminate? What is the accountability mechanism?
"Rice: Senator, I think it's best to leave the President's words as the President's words.
"Indeed, heed the President's words...mission accomplished, stay the course, absolutely, we're winning."
There you have it, you voted for it, and you got it. "Stay the course" means escalating the U.S. led war in the Middle East. "Stay the course" means more U.S. troops to Iraq. "Stay the course" means a U.S. invasion of Syria. "Stay the course" means a U.S. bombing and invasion of Iran. How is it working out? Had enough? Vote Democratic.
Showdown in D.C.
This from the New York Times:
"Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
"By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
"Published: January 10, 2007
"WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
"Senator Ted Kennedy spoke about the U.S. involvement in Iraq at the National Press Club in Washington.
"Doug Mills/The New York Times
“Demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. told reporters yesterday. “That will spark real change.”
"Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
"The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
"In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.
"The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.
“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”
"The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.
"While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.
"They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
"We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”
"On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
"But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.
In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”
"But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.
"The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night.
"On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.
"Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.
“We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.”
"Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.
“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.
"Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. "It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents.
“Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.”
Thom Shanker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting."
"Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
"By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
"Published: January 10, 2007
"WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
"Senator Ted Kennedy spoke about the U.S. involvement in Iraq at the National Press Club in Washington.
"Doug Mills/The New York Times
“Demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. told reporters yesterday. “That will spark real change.”
"Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
"The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
"In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.
"The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.
“If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”
"The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.
"While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.
"They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
"We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”
"On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
"But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.
In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”
"But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.
"The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night.
"On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.
"Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.
“We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.”
"Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.
“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.
"Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. "It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents.
“Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.”
Thom Shanker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting."
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Editorial from the Daily Kos.
The Kentucky Fifth District voted to "stay the course" on the Iraqi War in 2006, when they defeated the Democratic Candidate for Congress, and re-elected the Republican "stay the course" candidate Hal Rogers. I predict the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, which has already costed over 3,000 U.S. service people's lives, will drag on for another two years, with more U.S. combat deaths in Iraq. The Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House, but the pro-war Republicans and a handful of pro-war Democrats are enough to keep the U.S. military occupation of Iraq going for another two years. However, I agree with the following assessment by the blogspot Daily Kos:
"It's clear that lots of Republicans are already panicking about their 2008 chances, and it won't be long before most of the Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 are fervent war opponents, as well as any House Republican who won her or his reelection battle by single digits.
"But it won't save them, just like it didn't save Lincoln Chafee.
"This is the Republicans' war. They bought it. They broke it. They own it. And they will suffer the brunt of it.
"And the more Bush and McCain escalate the war, the deeper the consequences will be.
"So don't fret that Congressional Dems can't unilaterally get us out of that mess. That power is vested in the president. But the bigger the mess Republicans make of the war, the bigger our victories in 2008. And if we make those big gains in Congress and the White House, ending this war will be tops on our 2009 agenda." Kenneth Stepp.
"It's clear that lots of Republicans are already panicking about their 2008 chances, and it won't be long before most of the Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 are fervent war opponents, as well as any House Republican who won her or his reelection battle by single digits.
"But it won't save them, just like it didn't save Lincoln Chafee.
"This is the Republicans' war. They bought it. They broke it. They own it. And they will suffer the brunt of it.
"And the more Bush and McCain escalate the war, the deeper the consequences will be.
"So don't fret that Congressional Dems can't unilaterally get us out of that mess. That power is vested in the president. But the bigger the mess Republicans make of the war, the bigger our victories in 2008. And if we make those big gains in Congress and the White House, ending this war will be tops on our 2009 agenda." Kenneth Stepp.
Thanks for Nothing Hal Rogers!
January 5, 2007
The House voted on Friday to pull the shadowy tradition of Congressional earmarking into the daylight, requiring lawmakers to attach their names to the pet items they slip into spending or tax bills and certify that they have no financial interest in the provisions. Forty-eight Republicans joined with 232 Democrats to pass the measure. The full roll call vote can be found here: 152 Republicans, including Hal Rogers, voted against earmarks reform. Thanks for nothing Hal Rogers.
The House voted on Friday to pull the shadowy tradition of Congressional earmarking into the daylight, requiring lawmakers to attach their names to the pet items they slip into spending or tax bills and certify that they have no financial interest in the provisions. Forty-eight Republicans joined with 232 Democrats to pass the measure. The full roll call vote can be found here: 152 Republicans, including Hal Rogers, voted against earmarks reform. Thanks for nothing Hal Rogers.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
