by Joel Thompson
Republican Sen. John Warner appealed to President Bush on Sunday to withdraw some troops from Iraq by Christmas to illustrate to the Iraqi government that US presence is not open-ended in that country.
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Warner revealed that his message to Bush following a recent trip to Iraq was, “put some teeth behind your words.” Those words, that Bush’s troop surge was meant to create conditions for the Iraqi government to solidify and not as a long term commitment, have not prompted the government of Nouri al-Maliki to solve its differences.
While Warner’s proposal is modest – he does not stipulate how many troops should be withdrawn, leaving that number to the president – the interview still grabbed headlines. Mainly, Warner’s response to a question from Tim Russert on whether or not he would support a Congressional bill for troop withdrawal should Bush reject the Warner plan drew the most attention:
“I don’t say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider.”
Republican Sen. John Warner gives NBC's Tim Russert his thoughts on Iraq
The Associated Press’s Hope Yen seized on that quote with the headline, “Warner May Back Democrats on Withdrawal.” But as Warner, himself, correctly points out, a Congressional bill on that matter is essentially a non-starter, as Bush would veto the measure:
“There is the opportunity for Congress to do it, but mind you, look at how they would have to do it. They would have to vote, let’s say, some type of troop program, taking away from the president really his constitutional power to make those decisions, then that would have to go to the president. He could veto it; then it comes back for 67 votes. I don’t think the president will be in any way overridden in his veto.”
So the question instead should be: Should Democrats be rallying behind the Warner plan as an achievable alternative?
Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton has introduced, alongside Sen. Robert Byrd, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007. According to her website:
“The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 - the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq - as the expiration date for that resolution. The President would be required to come to Congress to seek new authority. Following deauthorization, Senator Clinton would not support any new legislation that did not start to remove our troops from the middle of this sectarian civil war.”
While sensible, the bill would not garner the necessary support among GOP senators to gain a 2/3 override of a Bush veto. That message received further enforcement from Sen. Lindsey Graham, who spoke out against any reduction of the surge, following his two-week service in Iraq as a member of the Air Force Reserve.
Similarly, John Edwards and Barack Obama have included in their platforms plans to legislate the end of active US troop involvement.
Warner’s proposal, however, requires no such Congressional measures but represents an opportunity for both sides of the aisle to pressure the president to take action. If nothing else, the reduction, on whatever scale, would be a positive step where there have been few.
For this reason, I would like to see Democrats back the Warner plan with an eye toward pressuring the Maliki government to get its act together. Perhaps finally, the Iraqis would take the necessary steps toward determining a destiny befitting of the more than 3700 American troops that have died there.
Only then would total American withdrawal become a possibility. Otherwise, we are forced to wait until January of 2009 and the change in leadership it should bring.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Best Week
by Joel Thompson
Hillary Clinton scored the primary season’s first political advertising victory last week. Her “Invisible” ad (1:00 video below), which began running in Iowa last Monday, strikes at the Bush administration’s treatment of those in difficult social circumstances.
Specifically, Clinton mentions families without health care, single mothers struggling with day care, and soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as groups that the current administration mistreats as “invisible.” The advertisement concludes with Clinton at a Town Hall style meeting saying, “but they’re not invisible to me, and they won’t be invisible to the next President of the United States.”
While the first two sets mentioned should come as no surprise – health care is a bedrock issue for several Democratic candidates – Clinton’s very public attack on Bush’s treatment of veterans likely ruffled the most White House feathers.
Bush’s Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, called the ad “outrageous” and went on to mention the administration’s advocacy of lower prescription drug costs for seniors, an issue not mentioned in the “Invisible” message.
But Perino saved her strongest words for the returning troops:
"And as to whether or not our troops are invisible to this President, I think that that is absurd, and that is unconscionable that a member of Congress would say such a thing."
The strong rebuke from the White House helps reinforce one of Clinton’s strongest campaign messages: that she has the know-how and the political will to defeat the Republican political machine. That message certainly strikes a chord with voters still reeling from John Kerry’s dismantling at the hands of Karl Rove and co. in 2004.
Following the week of reaction to the campaign ad, Karl Rove made the Sunday morning television rounds and Clinton was again the focus. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Rove played on many Democrats’ concerns over Clinton’s “electability:"
"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll. It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."
While some pundits believe that the Republicans are focusing their barbs on Clinton because they believe she will be easier to defeat than John Edwards or Barack Obama in a general election, I believe the opposite is true.
Rove deliberately focused on Clinton’s electability, not on the key aspects of her platform. That tactic is designed not to rally the Democratic base around Clinton, but to give it further pause about her ability to win key swing states.
All of the attention provided Clinton with a perfect segue into Sunday night’s Iowa Debate, where she suggested that Rove “is obsessed” her. Clinton also noted that she has been, “fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here, and I’ve taken them on, and we’ve beaten them.”
From the release of the “Invisible” ad through the Iowa debate, Clinton enjoyed her best week of the campaign season. She looked the part of the front-runner, and enters the Fall with momentum. Whether that momentum will turn into a boost in polling and a regaining of some ground recently lost to Edwards and Obama remains to be seen.
Hillary Clinton scored the primary season’s first political advertising victory last week. Her “Invisible” ad (1:00 video below), which began running in Iowa last Monday, strikes at the Bush administration’s treatment of those in difficult social circumstances.
Specifically, Clinton mentions families without health care, single mothers struggling with day care, and soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as groups that the current administration mistreats as “invisible.” The advertisement concludes with Clinton at a Town Hall style meeting saying, “but they’re not invisible to me, and they won’t be invisible to the next President of the United States.”
While the first two sets mentioned should come as no surprise – health care is a bedrock issue for several Democratic candidates – Clinton’s very public attack on Bush’s treatment of veterans likely ruffled the most White House feathers.
Bush’s Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, called the ad “outrageous” and went on to mention the administration’s advocacy of lower prescription drug costs for seniors, an issue not mentioned in the “Invisible” message.
But Perino saved her strongest words for the returning troops:
"And as to whether or not our troops are invisible to this President, I think that that is absurd, and that is unconscionable that a member of Congress would say such a thing."
The strong rebuke from the White House helps reinforce one of Clinton’s strongest campaign messages: that she has the know-how and the political will to defeat the Republican political machine. That message certainly strikes a chord with voters still reeling from John Kerry’s dismantling at the hands of Karl Rove and co. in 2004.
Following the week of reaction to the campaign ad, Karl Rove made the Sunday morning television rounds and Clinton was again the focus. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Rove played on many Democrats’ concerns over Clinton’s “electability:"
"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll. It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."
While some pundits believe that the Republicans are focusing their barbs on Clinton because they believe she will be easier to defeat than John Edwards or Barack Obama in a general election, I believe the opposite is true.
Rove deliberately focused on Clinton’s electability, not on the key aspects of her platform. That tactic is designed not to rally the Democratic base around Clinton, but to give it further pause about her ability to win key swing states.
All of the attention provided Clinton with a perfect segue into Sunday night’s Iowa Debate, where she suggested that Rove “is obsessed” her. Clinton also noted that she has been, “fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here, and I’ve taken them on, and we’ve beaten them.”
From the release of the “Invisible” ad through the Iowa debate, Clinton enjoyed her best week of the campaign season. She looked the part of the front-runner, and enters the Fall with momentum. Whether that momentum will turn into a boost in polling and a regaining of some ground recently lost to Edwards and Obama remains to be seen.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Fred Thompson: A Candidate with Nothing to Lose
by Joel Thompson
Fred Thompson's late arrival to the Republican presidential field will not hinder his chances. Since he was first mentioned as a potential candidate, the title of front runner has changed hands, with John McCain now apparently trailing both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney proving that designation can change quickly.
Thompson brings to the table something that his three closest competitors do not: his candidacy has not been a foregone conclusion for several years. As a result, Thompson, the 65-year old former US Senator from Tennessee, will not have his career defined by the events of the next 15 months.
This could free Thompson from having to straddle the fence on key issues because he essentially has nothing to lose.
The situation is similar to that faced by Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004, and to some extent John Edwards or even Ralph Nader.
These candidates, as they are not currently serving in Congress or a state's executive branch, are not beholden to lobbyists who they might need for key legislation in their current office.
David Broder intervied Thompson for yesterday's Washington Post, and they touch on this "nothing-to-lose" mentality.
The interview concludes:
Thompson readily concedes that he does not know "where all those chips are going to fall" when he starts challenging members of various interest groups to look beyond their individual agendas and weigh the sacrifices that could ensure a better future for their children.
But these issues -- national security and the fiscal crisis of an aging society with runaway heath-care costs -- "are worth a portion of a man's life. If I can't get elected talking that way, I probably don't deserve to be elected."
Thompson says he feels "free to do it" his own way, and that freedom may just be enough to shake up the presidential race.
With the combination of this presidential run not necessarily defining him and not being tied too deeply to PAC's, Thompson could present a very real challenge to his fellow Republican candidates. If he wins the nomination, he would receive plenty of support from the far right and be a tough out for the eventual Democratic nominee.
If he does eventually gain office, I just hope Sam Waterson is available to become White House Press Secretary.
Fred Thompson's late arrival to the Republican presidential field will not hinder his chances. Since he was first mentioned as a potential candidate, the title of front runner has changed hands, with John McCain now apparently trailing both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney proving that designation can change quickly.
Thompson brings to the table something that his three closest competitors do not: his candidacy has not been a foregone conclusion for several years. As a result, Thompson, the 65-year old former US Senator from Tennessee, will not have his career defined by the events of the next 15 months.
This could free Thompson from having to straddle the fence on key issues because he essentially has nothing to lose.
The situation is similar to that faced by Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004, and to some extent John Edwards or even Ralph Nader.
These candidates, as they are not currently serving in Congress or a state's executive branch, are not beholden to lobbyists who they might need for key legislation in their current office.
David Broder intervied Thompson for yesterday's Washington Post, and they touch on this "nothing-to-lose" mentality.
The interview concludes:
Thompson readily concedes that he does not know "where all those chips are going to fall" when he starts challenging members of various interest groups to look beyond their individual agendas and weigh the sacrifices that could ensure a better future for their children.
But these issues -- national security and the fiscal crisis of an aging society with runaway heath-care costs -- "are worth a portion of a man's life. If I can't get elected talking that way, I probably don't deserve to be elected."
Thompson says he feels "free to do it" his own way, and that freedom may just be enough to shake up the presidential race.
With the combination of this presidential run not necessarily defining him and not being tied too deeply to PAC's, Thompson could present a very real challenge to his fellow Republican candidates. If he wins the nomination, he would receive plenty of support from the far right and be a tough out for the eventual Democratic nominee.
If he does eventually gain office, I just hope Sam Waterson is available to become White House Press Secretary.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Edwards/Obama the Ticket to Beat
by Joel Thompson
"Electability" has ascended to new heights of political importance. No longer a buzz word, people consider its affect on candidates in ways similar to key platform issues.
Person A: I really like Dennis Kucinich's views on universal health care and his plans to get us out of Iraq.
Person B: I agree, but he's not "electable."
This conversation undoubtedly occurs countless times around America, and it's not just the trailing candidates who need worry. Hillary Clinton's front running status has not shielded her from questions of "electability."
An AP article in December contained this quote from a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party:
“She’s a senator, she’d be the first woman running, and she’s Hillary Clinton. All of that is almost insurmountable for a general election.”
And that says nothing about the rampant disdain for her among many (dare I say, most) Republicans.
This brings us to today's topic. Among the current field of Democratic hopefuls, what duo offers the best "electability" if they were ticketed together?
Since 2008 is billed as a "change" election, I will eliminate Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, in the Senate since 1973 and 1981, respectively, from all tickets. I admire both men and think they are fine US Senators, but the 2008 climate calls for fresher faces.
Dennis Kucinich continues to impress, answering questions directly and with clear cut positions on virtually every issue. No one can accuse Congressman Kucinich of flip-flopping, most notably on the Iraq War, which he voted against from the beginning. Unfortunately, Kucinich is too Nixon to other candidates' JFK (appearances only, certainly not on issues). A sad testament to the current state of American politics, Kucinich's inability to "look presidential" may be his downfall, and his attacks on other candidates during the primary season will preclude him from getting a VP nod.
That leaves Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama in our candidate pool.
A Clinton/Richardson ticket seems destined if Clinton can gain the nomination. Richardson served as Bill Clinton's Ambassador to the UN and was called upon often during those years for his diplomatic skills.
While Clinton remains the leader in national polls, her campaign leaves much to desire. Along with those listed above, the difficulties she faces are classic front runner issues: she fears making mistakes to jeopardize her top status, and that prohibits her from making strong stands on all of the important issues.
A similar dilemma seems to be dogging Barack Obama. Still trying to reconcile his amazing rise to presidential hopeful, Obama seems unwilling to put himself too far on the line for fear of putting his standing in danger. This explains why he continually calls for fresh ideas in Washington while contrasting himself to Clinton, but rarely says what that would mean if he were elected.
John Edwards’ campaign seems unhindered by this overly careful approach. Either because he has been through a presidential campaign before or because he truly believes in his “Two Americas” message, Edwards has managed to gain esteem on some key issues, most notably health care, by taking clearly delineated stands. He can combine Kucinich’s clear positioning with Obama’s youth and swagger.
For this reason, despite his third place standing in national polls, I believe John Edwards possesses the greatest “electability” in the current field.
CNN reports today that Edwards left the door ajar for an Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008. Because 2008 represents a “change” election year, this ticket appeals to me greatly. Both men give a youthful and attractive exuberance, but Edwards knows how to better position himself for the electorate.
Barack Obama continues to emphasize his fresh-face standing in a "change" election.
Obama supporters would happily vote for this ticket knowing that in eight years, his questions of experience would be fully answered, and he would be in an even better position for a presidential bid.
I’ll round out this discussion by naming Bill Richardson as Secretary of State.
I’m not sure that Edwards/Obama will come to fruition, but I would be excited if it did. Their "electability," after all, is exceptional.
Let me know your “ticket to beat.”
"Electability" has ascended to new heights of political importance. No longer a buzz word, people consider its affect on candidates in ways similar to key platform issues.
Person A: I really like Dennis Kucinich's views on universal health care and his plans to get us out of Iraq.
Person B: I agree, but he's not "electable."
This conversation undoubtedly occurs countless times around America, and it's not just the trailing candidates who need worry. Hillary Clinton's front running status has not shielded her from questions of "electability."
An AP article in December contained this quote from a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party:
“She’s a senator, she’d be the first woman running, and she’s Hillary Clinton. All of that is almost insurmountable for a general election.”
And that says nothing about the rampant disdain for her among many (dare I say, most) Republicans.
This brings us to today's topic. Among the current field of Democratic hopefuls, what duo offers the best "electability" if they were ticketed together?
Since 2008 is billed as a "change" election, I will eliminate Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, in the Senate since 1973 and 1981, respectively, from all tickets. I admire both men and think they are fine US Senators, but the 2008 climate calls for fresher faces.
Dennis Kucinich continues to impress, answering questions directly and with clear cut positions on virtually every issue. No one can accuse Congressman Kucinich of flip-flopping, most notably on the Iraq War, which he voted against from the beginning. Unfortunately, Kucinich is too Nixon to other candidates' JFK (appearances only, certainly not on issues). A sad testament to the current state of American politics, Kucinich's inability to "look presidential" may be his downfall, and his attacks on other candidates during the primary season will preclude him from getting a VP nod.
That leaves Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama in our candidate pool.
A Clinton/Richardson ticket seems destined if Clinton can gain the nomination. Richardson served as Bill Clinton's Ambassador to the UN and was called upon often during those years for his diplomatic skills.
While Clinton remains the leader in national polls, her campaign leaves much to desire. Along with those listed above, the difficulties she faces are classic front runner issues: she fears making mistakes to jeopardize her top status, and that prohibits her from making strong stands on all of the important issues.
A similar dilemma seems to be dogging Barack Obama. Still trying to reconcile his amazing rise to presidential hopeful, Obama seems unwilling to put himself too far on the line for fear of putting his standing in danger. This explains why he continually calls for fresh ideas in Washington while contrasting himself to Clinton, but rarely says what that would mean if he were elected.
John Edwards’ campaign seems unhindered by this overly careful approach. Either because he has been through a presidential campaign before or because he truly believes in his “Two Americas” message, Edwards has managed to gain esteem on some key issues, most notably health care, by taking clearly delineated stands. He can combine Kucinich’s clear positioning with Obama’s youth and swagger.
For this reason, despite his third place standing in national polls, I believe John Edwards possesses the greatest “electability” in the current field.
CNN reports today that Edwards left the door ajar for an Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008. Because 2008 represents a “change” election year, this ticket appeals to me greatly. Both men give a youthful and attractive exuberance, but Edwards knows how to better position himself for the electorate.
Barack Obama continues to emphasize his fresh-face standing in a "change" election.
Obama supporters would happily vote for this ticket knowing that in eight years, his questions of experience would be fully answered, and he would be in an even better position for a presidential bid.
I’ll round out this discussion by naming Bill Richardson as Secretary of State.
I’m not sure that Edwards/Obama will come to fruition, but I would be excited if it did. Their "electability," after all, is exceptional.
Let me know your “ticket to beat.”
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Redemption of John Edwards
by Joel Thompson
In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.
Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.
John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?
That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004. That evening, at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, a surprising 43.6 million people tuned into the only Vice Presidential Debate of they year, giving Edwards the stage many believed he would thrive on (click here for video).
The results were not as I had hoped. Cheney managed the debate brilliantly, at times portraying a shrewd leader on issues of foreign affairs, at others an “aw shucks” Midwestern charm, and still others lying through his teeth. Edwards looked baffled and shaken, as if he was surprised by Cheney’s political tenacity.
My theory then and now holds that Edwards had always been able to navigate political debates with more self-assurance and poise than any opponent he had faced to that point. Cheney simply caught him off guard, and the American people, some of whom were getting their first exposure to Edwards, saw a side that he could not have been happy about.
Post-debate polling showed what I feared while watching. Only 25% of those polled felt that John Edwards would be qualified to assume the presidency compared to nearly twice that many believing the same for Dick Cheney. Victory: Cheney.
Fast forward to 2008. John Edwards has solidified his “Two Americas” platform and is again striking a populist chord among Democrats eager to find a candidate who represents their core values and with whom they can easily identify.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose message at times feels vague and Barack Obama, whose popularity surge people are still growing accustomed to, Edwards message comes with an easily interpreted sincerity.
As the above video shows, Edwards maintains his at-ease style as well as ever. I can honestly envision this man going door-to-door eschewing his everyman beliefs. His platform is, in a word, believable.
The tenet of “Two Americas” that hits home for me is this: one America lives comfortably with inordinate wealth, and one lives on the edge of despair. The latter not only includes the obvious poor and unemployed, but also the huge American middle-class. These are teachers, laborers, middle management, small business entrepreneurs and many others who are one unfortunate circumstance away from despair.
When a medical emergency strikes and insurance does not cover enough of the costs, then what? If your vehicle breaks down and your savings account does not cover repairs, how do you get to work or school?
Those are the types of questions to which Edwards seeks answers, and many Americans can identify.
If Edwards learned from that difficult Cheney debate in 2004, he may just have the opportunity to take his solutions to the ultimate stage: a 2008 showdown against the Republican nominee.
In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.
Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.
John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?
That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004. That evening, at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, a surprising 43.6 million people tuned into the only Vice Presidential Debate of they year, giving Edwards the stage many believed he would thrive on (click here for video).
The results were not as I had hoped. Cheney managed the debate brilliantly, at times portraying a shrewd leader on issues of foreign affairs, at others an “aw shucks” Midwestern charm, and still others lying through his teeth. Edwards looked baffled and shaken, as if he was surprised by Cheney’s political tenacity.
My theory then and now holds that Edwards had always been able to navigate political debates with more self-assurance and poise than any opponent he had faced to that point. Cheney simply caught him off guard, and the American people, some of whom were getting their first exposure to Edwards, saw a side that he could not have been happy about.
Post-debate polling showed what I feared while watching. Only 25% of those polled felt that John Edwards would be qualified to assume the presidency compared to nearly twice that many believing the same for Dick Cheney. Victory: Cheney.
Fast forward to 2008. John Edwards has solidified his “Two Americas” platform and is again striking a populist chord among Democrats eager to find a candidate who represents their core values and with whom they can easily identify.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose message at times feels vague and Barack Obama, whose popularity surge people are still growing accustomed to, Edwards message comes with an easily interpreted sincerity.
As the above video shows, Edwards maintains his at-ease style as well as ever. I can honestly envision this man going door-to-door eschewing his everyman beliefs. His platform is, in a word, believable.
The tenet of “Two Americas” that hits home for me is this: one America lives comfortably with inordinate wealth, and one lives on the edge of despair. The latter not only includes the obvious poor and unemployed, but also the huge American middle-class. These are teachers, laborers, middle management, small business entrepreneurs and many others who are one unfortunate circumstance away from despair.
When a medical emergency strikes and insurance does not cover enough of the costs, then what? If your vehicle breaks down and your savings account does not cover repairs, how do you get to work or school?
Those are the types of questions to which Edwards seeks answers, and many Americans can identify.
If Edwards learned from that difficult Cheney debate in 2004, he may just have the opportunity to take his solutions to the ultimate stage: a 2008 showdown against the Republican nominee.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Pentagon Arming Insurgents
by Joel Thompson
Add another infuriating chapter to the Iraq War. A new report, released by the Government Accountability Office, details how the Department of Defense has lost track of almost 200,000 guns and 250,000 pieces of body armor and helmets provided to Iraqi security forces.
Among those numbers is 110,000 deadly AK-47 assault rifles that DOD officials are privately acknowledging ended up in the hands of insurgents and are being used against coalition forces.
The loss rate on these rifles, which were given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, is a staggering 59% (an article in the Cincinnati Post details all of the numbers).
The news only gets worse. The man in charge of arming and equipping the Iraqi security forces during that time period was none other than Gen. David Petraeus, who is now the top commander in Iraq. Petraeus consistently receives praise from the Bush administration for his fine work in Iraq, but they have failed to mention that he oversaw an operation that handed, by American standards, an unsophisticated army more weaponry than they ever could have hoped to get their bloody hands on.
Congress should immediately open an inquiry into this heinous DOD fumbling and bring the guilty parties to justice. And every time Bush and Cheney posture about Iran and Syria's involvement in arming insurgents, people everywhere should point out that the Pentagon should share a large portion of the blame.
Add another infuriating chapter to the Iraq War. A new report, released by the Government Accountability Office, details how the Department of Defense has lost track of almost 200,000 guns and 250,000 pieces of body armor and helmets provided to Iraqi security forces.
Among those numbers is 110,000 deadly AK-47 assault rifles that DOD officials are privately acknowledging ended up in the hands of insurgents and are being used against coalition forces.
The loss rate on these rifles, which were given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, is a staggering 59% (an article in the Cincinnati Post details all of the numbers).
The news only gets worse. The man in charge of arming and equipping the Iraqi security forces during that time period was none other than Gen. David Petraeus, who is now the top commander in Iraq. Petraeus consistently receives praise from the Bush administration for his fine work in Iraq, but they have failed to mention that he oversaw an operation that handed, by American standards, an unsophisticated army more weaponry than they ever could have hoped to get their bloody hands on.
Congress should immediately open an inquiry into this heinous DOD fumbling and bring the guilty parties to justice. And every time Bush and Cheney posture about Iran and Syria's involvement in arming insurgents, people everywhere should point out that the Pentagon should share a large portion of the blame.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Gonzalez' Dishonesty Hiding Others' Corruption
The latest issue of TIME Magazine includes an interesting article focusing on George Bush's refusal to rid his cabinet of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Titled "Why Bush Won't Axe Gonzalez," author Christopher Morris lays out four reasons the embattled leader of the Department of Justice remains in office.
I find reason #3 most intriguing:
"If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues."
So to avoid handing the Democrats a victory on corruption, Bush is hanging onto the biggest political hack on his cabinet? This is the same man who hired and fired federal prosecutors based on political loyalties ("loyal Bushies" were kept around), not on their ability to convict criminals.
We already know that there has been plenty of corruption in this administration, but keeping Gonzalez around only magnifies how deeply it runs. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, for example, received numerous political donations from non-environmentally friendly companies like ConAgra during his senatorial and gubernatorial career. This same man is in charge of protecting our national parks, but he advocates opening our national forests for logging.
As the TIME article points out, there are a lot of hidden skeletons in this administration, and Alberto Gonzalez, for all his fumbling in front of Congress, may actually be protecting them from coming out.
MSNBC coverage of Alberto Gonzalez' recent Senate testimony.
I find reason #3 most intriguing:
"If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues."
So to avoid handing the Democrats a victory on corruption, Bush is hanging onto the biggest political hack on his cabinet? This is the same man who hired and fired federal prosecutors based on political loyalties ("loyal Bushies" were kept around), not on their ability to convict criminals.
We already know that there has been plenty of corruption in this administration, but keeping Gonzalez around only magnifies how deeply it runs. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, for example, received numerous political donations from non-environmentally friendly companies like ConAgra during his senatorial and gubernatorial career. This same man is in charge of protecting our national parks, but he advocates opening our national forests for logging.
As the TIME article points out, there are a lot of hidden skeletons in this administration, and Alberto Gonzalez, for all his fumbling in front of Congress, may actually be protecting them from coming out.
MSNBC coverage of Alberto Gonzalez' recent Senate testimony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)