Archive for January, 2007

Yesterday, I wrote about several of the Democrats possible courses of action to solving the Iraq problem.  Today, Barack Obama introduced his own version of the answer, with centers around complete redeployment by March 2008.  The bill has several key components:

Key Elements of Obama Plan

• Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.
• De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.
• Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush’s own statements and Administration documents and include:
  • Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.
  • Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.
  • Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

  Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

• Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government’s progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.
• Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.
• Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.
• Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

So the same questions must be asked.  Can this kind of legislation actually work under the threat of a presidential veto, or is this positioning to back up a Presidential run in 2008?  We know that Obama never had the opportunity to vote on the original Iraq resolution, something his detractors as well as his supporters have often pointed out, so perhaps this is meant to solidify his position in the minds of voters.

Thoughts?

Very little fish, BIG OLE OCEAN of Humanity.

If I look tired but happy, its because I was. I hadn’t even been in DC for 12 hours before this pic was taken, and got little sleep the night before the March. When I arrived at the Mall things were not as serene as in this next photo:

(taken from the top of the Washington Monument, the day after the March)

I can’t even begin to tell you how many people there were just streaming onto the Mall. I had tried to time it to get to downtown by 11ish, but by the time I found standing space on the train, it was more like noon.

Speakers were speaking, who knows what they were actually saying, because they were drowned out by the horde of humanity. There were people talking, people trying to listen, people selling things, people meeting up with their groups, people talking laughing, and people singing, and people shouting. Mass confusion. In a good way.

I was supposed to check in with the MoveOn people at the corner of Jefferson and 4th, but they weren’t there, so I wandered off taking it all in. (I found them later, don’t worry.)

One of the first people in costume I ran across, reminded me of Shane, so I had to snap this picture for him, and all the Boyos who loved “V for Vendetta”

It might be hard to see, but in the background is someone with a poster reading “Blessed are the Peacemakers” and another reading “Love your enemies, don’t kill them”, which are sentiments that I think underline the communal energy of the day.

It was amazing. Thoublocksands and thousands of people all gathered in one place, to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq. People on Blogs often speak out about First Amendment protected rights of Free Speech, but let’s not forget about another part of the First Amendment:

” . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is what the spirit of this weekend was about.

Some might want Bush or Cheney to be impeached:

I am not saying these people do, although the chain gang seemed to want it, (it was funny; they had Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rummy in chains, with Keystone Cop . . Cops guarding them) everything was done with an underlying peaceful and law abiding spirit.

One of my favorites was this man who just stood serenely with a daisy and sign in one hand, while the other was clenched at his side, as the protesters moved around him.

I don’t think I saw him move. Powerful.

His message completed quite nicely, by a sign in the background reading “To Our Soldiers: Thank you for your Blood, Sweat, Tears, and Service, but it is time to come home. We will work to bring you Home.”

There were people with huge puppets, no irony here: Justice trying to find the balance between the news that we have been spoon fed on one hand, and American’s addiction to oil and the companies greed on the other hand.

How can we win?

By thinking about the people, ours and theirs.

By doing the right thing, instead of the thing that surge’s our own interests.

It is time to live up to our responsibilities to the people of Iraq, and to our responsibilities to our own people.

Killing each other because we are afraid to listen to one another isn’t working. There have been way too many deaths on both sides.

Democracy can’t be forced. It has to be earned, and tried. That’s how we did it, and it was hard, and we are still working out the system today, we might be working it out for centuries to come. Democracy is an imperfect system, and it is only improved through the voices of its Citizens.

It won’t be easy, but it is a step in the right direction. To trust the Iraqis enough, to lend them a hand when needed, to trust them enough to build their own government. It is time.

Leveling another weapon will not help improve America’s reputation on the world stage. Sometimes I think that the Government has forgotten that Americans are not the only people on the planet. It is not our planet to rule, but ours to share.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

  These are my sisters. You are my brother. I care about what happens to you. I care about your future.

You might live on the other side of the world, but you are in my heart. I marched on Saturday for you, for your rights, and for your life.

You might not agree with me, and I am at peace with that sentiment. I do not require you to agree with me, for me to hold your interests as my own interests. I am a worker, I am a soldier, and I am a homemaker. I am every person. I march for you.

The time has come to take a stand.

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963.

We marched for change. 

We marched to make a statement.

 We marched for life.

We said our Peace.

Now it is up to the Government.

Will they listen?

You know me. Every time George Bush gives a public address I start looking for things that he’s not talking about in public. There’s usually something. It was beginning to look like last week’s address may be an exception, but no. While most reporters and pundits were busy with the war and the surge, with the weekend protests, and with dissecting the SOTU address George stayed true to form and slid in this cute little Executive Order.

In short, it requires each regulatory agency in the government to have an office of gatekeeper, appointed by the White House, to make sure no regulations are passed that said White House doesn’t approve of. Environmental regulations, public health and safety regulations, all of them must be checked over by a White House person to make sure it fits a certain cost/benefit ratio before it can be passed.

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight — if EPA or OSHA or any other regulatory agency issues a new rule or guidance document for public health, or safety, or whatever reason, and if George Bush’s good friends in industry bitch and whine about it being too restrictive or expensive, George can simply say no. He’s the decider. Great. How do you like them apples?

Perhaps President Bush thinks there is no none to stop his proposed (and pursued) troop surge, but Dick Cheney knows one way, and has been provoking Democrats to try it.

No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop a war by canceling its funding. In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Congress to back up its objections to Bush’s plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

A funding cut is just one of the plausible ways Congress can flex its muscles in regards to Iraq; a way being pursued by Russ Feingold.  Barbara Boxer is co-sponsoring a bill that would require troops to come home within 180 days; leaving enough to hunt down certain individuals and finish the Iraqi training.  Another idea bring tossed around is a cap to the number of troops who could be deployed to Iraq, in total, or in surges.

All of this is being debated as Congress tries to find its legs and back up what American voters had hoped were solid campaign promises about ending the war in Iraq.  In November, voters expected to find a troop withdrawal in the new year, not a troop surge.  I think those politics geeks among us knew that Congress was far more impotent in this regard than most Democrats let on.  It is encouraging to see Congress pursuing what avenues they do have, but with the President almost certain to veto any of the above ideas (and the Senate in no position to override a veto) my questions are these?

1) Which of the above ideas would you most support (or, as the case may be, most oppose)?

2)  Do you see any other, more passable, course of action for Congressional Democrats to act on the will of the American voters?

OK. We’ve protested. But now where do we go? We’ll see if this past weekend has any effect. In the meantime, allow me to toss out a small grenade.
There is a resolution in Congress against the war. There are some timid, weak-kneed bills being introduced to supposedly deal with global warming. None of this comes close to really doing anything.
It’s pretty well accepted by now that we are fighting for control of the world’s future oil supplies. It’s also pretty much an accepted fact that burning all that oil will have a devastating effect on our climate. But are we really prepared to spend the foreseeable future fighting for a shrinking supply of oil? Are we willing to pass the effects of global warming on to our kids and grandkids simply because we don’t want to do anything to hurt our economy? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that all of the things we’re proposing now will do little more than slap band-aids on a seriously sick beast. Yes, we have much to protest about how and why we ended up in Iraq. But I don’t see this war ending, nor do I see future wars being averted as long as we continue to demand more and more oil. We need to ask some tough, fundamental questions about the way we live. Here’s a couple for starters:

• Given the possible consequences, is a corporate-controlled, consumer-driven, so-called free market economy, one that is totally dependent on oil, even worth saving?
• If so, how can we make it work without perpetual war and an increasingly hostile climate?
• If not, do we have the will and the courage to bite the bullet and come up with something that is?

These may not be popular questions,and they’re not easy ones, but I think they need to be asked. Go ahead and have at ‘em – I’ll sit back for a bit and see what you all might have to say.

Well I am alive and well, thanks for all the support, I was thinking of those of you who wanted to be thought of, ok, and even the ones who didn’t want to be thought of.

It was pretty interesting, I found out that I am nowhere near as rabid about getting out of the war (people were actually chanting “BY MONDAY!!”) as many of the people attending. 

I have tons of pictures, we will see if they turned out.  I am glad I did it, I found something out about myself, and a lot of other citizens.  More when I return.

In the meantime, I will leave you with this story . . .

After we dispersed after the march, many people headed to the Metro.  I missed my first chance to get on, as a family needed to ride together, I stepped off the train, and went to wait for the next one.

While I was waiting, a little blonde haired girl walked by.  Her sign said “I lost my dad in Iraq” and her t-shirt had his picture on it.  I teared up immediately, and when I looked up her mom was tearing up as well. 

They walked away, that family of five: one mom, four children, and a dad who was lost in Iraq.

Talk about bringing you to your knees.

I was tempted to write a post on the war in Iraq, but it seemed too easy somehow. It has somehow become my go-to topic. Not just mine though, the national conscience has been centered around it to a large extent. Realizing this made me wonder about the topics that we have lost focus of.  Here were the first two ignored issues that came to mind:

• Darfur, folks are still dying at an amazing rate. The speed at which we are reacting to this is mystifying. I predict that killing will stop only when everyone is dead. This is not just ‘rebel’ actions, it is an entire country ( government, police force et al ) that has decided to kill a large minority of their population. This is something that we should be focusing on.
• Afghanistan: there is a war going on there, and folks still die everyday.  It is a war we could have won, had we not taken our eye off the ball. However, violent terrorism still flourishes and is being funded by a record drug trade. In fact, the government there doesn’t seem willing to stop either. This is something that we should be focusing on.

Here are two important topics that we don’t seem to have the time or energy to try and solve because we are too damn busy fighting Mr Bush’s war. In the end, this post is really about the war too. We are consumed by it.

Representative Art Noonan of Butte stood in front of the State Capitol, in the brisk 15 degree Montana blue sky day before a crowd of peace supporters that included WWII and Vietnam veterans, Knitters for Peace, a Woman in Black and dozens of others, and posed that question.

A free-form rally was held on Saturday to coincide with MoveOn.org’s march in Washington DC – which our own Cece is in attendance by the grace of a MoveOn.org scholarship.

Noonan was joined by Senator Steve Gallus of Butte and Representative Julie French of Scoby, all of whom spoke passionately in support of our military and in protest of the war in Iraq – of the lies and falsehoods that got us there, and of the enormous cost in human lives as a result.

Noonan’s speech welled tears in my eyes – man, can that man speak! – and I dare say that there were several others also wiping away tears. In a moving speech, Noonan detailed how our nation got to this point, with lies of weapons of mass destruction, with lies of connecting 9/11 to Iraq and with the truth that we all know now. He spoke of the tremendous sacrifice that is being asked of our nation’s sons and daughters and posed this:

Ask yourself – What is the value of a life?……….And then ask yourself – What is the value of a life given for yours?

This is the question our nation needs to ask. This is the question our nation needs to answer. How many lives are worth what our president seeks in Iraq? And can what our president seeks in Iraq ever be found? Blindness to this very essence of what the war in Iraq has brought us - thousands of American lives lost at a cost that is undefinable and with lives which are priceless in value - is what must be considered, and what must never be forgotten.

Representative Julie French told the crowd of her son who had served in the service, and a younger son who has told her that if he is asked to go, he will do so without question. She spoke of her unwaivering support of men and women in service and HB 179, which she sponsored, that will create a Montana monetary relief fund for families and soldiers called up for federal service. She noted that while the monetary amount may seem insignificant in relation to what is actually being asked of the service men and women and their families, it is important for Montana’s sons and daughters to know that we, the people of this state, support them 100%.

Senator Steve Gallus began the event, speaking of his lack of approval for the war, and told the crowd of his pride in helping to carry forward, in the State Legislature, Representative Michele Reinhardt’s resolution to protest the Iraqi war.

As Shane noted below, the exhibit of excellence in leadership by Gallus, Noonan and French was heartening. The people of Butte and Scoby are fortunate to have such fine people representing them in Helena.

Today I attended a (cold) gathering on the lawn of the capitol in Helena to discuss a legislative proposal by Representative Michele Reinhardt opposing troop escalation in Iraq. The gathering was organized by Matt Singer and Forward Montana.

House minority leader Art Noonan of Butte, Senator Steve Gallus of Butte (who will be carrying the bill in the Senate), as well as Representative Julie French of Scoby delivered excellent speeches about the bill and the need to speak out when things are going terribly wrong.

It was heartening to see that the cities of Butte and the Scoby have delivered up excellence in leadership. However, I would have like to seen the steps lined with representatives and senators. For instance, I could not help but wonder where the folks I helped send to the capitol were today. I hope that our legislature understands that November was meant to send a message to them as well. I will keep you posted on this bill as it moves along.

In case we didn’t yet enough fodder for the anti-surge cannon, President Bush gave us more ammo today when asked about the congressional initiative to oppose his 20,000+ troop surge to Iraq:

“I’m the decision-maker”

Of course, that is not all he said, but I do think that quote highlights the hubris that is dominating this President’s mind. He feels that no one but himself is qualified to make good decisions about the course of action in the war torn country. It is true that Bush is the Commander in Chief, but that is not his only title; he is also the President, as elected by the citizens he governs, despite how I might feel about it. It is his duty to heed the desires of the nation, and those desires are anything but supportive of his new policy shift (if one can really call it new).

If in fact no one else is capable of making sound military decisions in Iraq but the President (nevermind the countless generals and militarily-trained Congressmen who offer sharp criticisms), Bush might have a point, but he demonstrates once again how closed off to alternatives he really is:

I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it’s even had a chance to work,” the president said. “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work

Silly me, and here I thought we have given Bush four years to prove his plan can work, but apparently Bush uses that ‘new math’. Furthermore, Democrats and other critics of Bush’s have offered “their own plans”. These plans have consisted of diplomatic solutions, phased withdrawls, the involvement of Iran, regional deployment, etc. The only reason Bush doesn’t consider these plans that “would work” is that they differ from his. Truth be told, Democrats have little options at this stage, and Bush knows it. That is why it is very simple for him to paint their few options (the non-binding resolution they are working on, as well as the last resort to cut military funding) as “pessimistic” and “divisive”. Once again bringing us back to the problem; Bush sees himself as the lone “decision-maker” leading a country that has repudiated his Iraq policy in every way they know how.

Republic, Democracy, checks and balances, separation of powers….

Where is the authority for this kind of stubborn, egocentric decision making found?

Anyone?  Anyone?

Our very own Cece is famous. Check out this piece in the Billing Gazette and this piece in the Helena IR. Well, they are the same piece but I thought I’ld include them both.

Good job Cece. Make us proud.

One more quick one . . .

As I understand, there is going to be a gathering at the Capitol Building’s front lawn at 11:30 on Saturday.  It was timed, a little bit, to coinicide with the March on DC. 

There are rumors of a couple of Montana Legislators talking, along with National level Representatives submitting statements to be read.  It might be short and sweet, but it is a chance for people in Montana against the Escalation of the “Military Engagement” in Iraq to gather, hear some good thoughts, and come together.

I will be thinking of you who attend, things are gathering steam in DC, and it is a good time to gather and express your support.  I will carry you all with me.

Eleanor McGovern, wife of Senator George McGovern, former Democratic presidential candidate, passed away today in her family home in Mitchell, South Dakota.

Eleanor had suffered from heart problems for the past five years, and had been under hospice care in their Stevensville Montana home according to former senator.

George McGovern was the Democratic presidential candidate in 1972. McGovern campaigned on an anti-Vietnam platform, and lost to Richard Nixon . A long-time peace advocate, George McGovern has been critical of the Iraqi war, and has spoken frequently in public against the war. Most recently he spoke at the National Press Club - and you can read his speech here.

Prayers to the Senator and his family. Godspeed Eleanor McGovern, Godpseed.

This from the New York Times via Drudge:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — As many as four big states — California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey — are likely to move up their 2008 presidential primaries to early next February, further upending an already unsettled nominating process and forcing candidates of both parties to rethink their campaign strategies, party officials said Wednesday.

I’m torn on this, but I’d be interested to see what any of you think of the idea. On the one hand, I dislike the notion of early large state primaries because the cash required pushes those who don’t have it out of the picture. Some of those who share my political persuasion may counter that those with the most popular ideas will generate the most cash, but for the most part I don’t share that perspective. George Soros could outspend me anytime to support a candidate, irrespective of the validity of said candidate’s views.

On the other hand, I liked the idea of a Western States primary, largely because those that come before us don’t necessarily share our values and concerns. I also wish we had more of a prolonged battle in the nomination process, and the article highlights how this rescheduling could promote my desires:

Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant who was a senior adviser to Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 and 2000, said the calendar changes, combined with the presence on the Democratic side of three strong and well-financed candidates — Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and, probably, John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator — could mean that the battle for the nomination drags on for months.

I suppose this issue brings forward the idea of publicly financed elections. In this area I am more aligned with my brethren on the right. I believe such an arrangement would spawn a multitude of candidates, which is all well and good, excepting that we would be committed to financing a David Duke for President campaign. I’m familiar with some of the minimum support arguments, but I don’t see how you could fairly exclude anyone from the race if you are using public money (that whole discrimination thing).

I’m not sure of the solution to this (gasp, a blogger who doesn’t have an answer), but the current method is not particularly satisfying; additionally, I’m not wild about the chaos of each state rushing to the front either. Any of you have more of a certitude on how to quell the conundrum?

The AP wrote up a news piece about Jon Tester’s schedule being available online. I applaud Tester for this effort, I think it is great that we can quickly see (on a daily basis even) what our junior Senator has been up to. After Burns, it is a nice change to have someone who believes more in accountability:

Tester’s daily schedules are available in an online archive, fulfilling a promise the Democrat made in his campaign against Republican Sen. Conrad Burns last year. Burns attracted heat for his relationship with Washington interests _ most notably convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff _ and ethics became a central issue.

Yea, good for Tester. Here’s what I don’t get: why this kind of transparency isn’t an automatic job requirement. The article goes on to say that ONE other congressperson posts a daily schedule, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. That makes 2 out of 535 people, or .0037% of our legislative branch. It seems that requiring members of congress would be a very cheap and simple way to make headway with scandal/ethics problems. Plus, how bad would it look to oppose such a bill? “No sir, I oppose the ability for my constituents to see how I spend my time on the job!”. Remember, these people work for us, and like any good boss, we have a right to know how our employees are spending their day.  In addition to being able to easily track
This shouldn’t be news, this should be the way it is, period.