SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (73891)1/20/2007 3:45:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Top Dems slam Bush on war strategy
____________________________________________________________

By Edward Epstein
San Francisco Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, January 20, 2007
(01-20) 04:00 PST Washington

The two top Democratic leaders of the new Congress blasted President Bush on his decision to send more troops to Iraq and warned him not to take military action against Iran without their approval, but they offered their bipartisan cooperation on domestic issues.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also indicated Friday in their annual "pre-buttal" to Bush's State of the Union speech that they want Congress to take strong action on global warming, an issue that until recently the Bush administration has downplayed.

The Democratic leaders' comments on Iraq, however, left little doubt that the debate over the war will overshadow everything else this year on Capitol Hill.

That impression was reinforced by a sharp exchange of words between the White House and Pelosi.

Pelosi, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," reiterated her tough stand against Bush's handling of the war.

The president "has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder," the speaker said.

Pelosi also said that keeping troops in Iraq in the midst of sectarian fighting "is not an obligation of the American people in perpetuity." The president has said he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, while many congressional Democrats have called for troop withdrawals.

Pelosi indicated she thought Bush was rushing some of the extra troops to Iraq quickly to pre-empt possible congressional resolutions opposing such new deployments.

"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way," Pelosi said.

Those comments set off Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary. She called Pelosi's comments "poisonous," especially for implying that Bush was using troops for political purposes.

"Speaker Pelosi was arguing in essence that the president is putting young men and women in harm's way for tactical political reasons. And she's questioning his motivations rather than questioning his policies," Perino told reporters.

"The one thing you can say about President Bush is that he's not moving forward with this new plan because he thinks it is popular. He is doing it because he thinks it is right," she added.

Opinion polls show fewer than 3 in 10 Americans support the president's announced policy to increase troop levels in Iraq.

In her appearance with Reid at the National Press Club, Pelosi again voiced support for the bipartisan, nonbinding Senate resolution introduced this week that opposes Bush's troop increase. The House will take up the resolution if it gets through the Senate.

Reid said "the president's new plan can be summed up in four words: more of the same. Like our military generals, the American people and a growing bipartisan chorus in Congress, I believe escalation is a serious mistake."

The Senate majority leader also warned Bush about recent speculation that the administration is considering military action against Iran because of its meddling in Iraq and because of its nuclear program.

"I'd like to be clear: The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Reid said.

At the White House, Perino repeated the president's position that no military operations are contemplated against Iran. "There seems to be fanning of flames where there's no fire," she said of Reid's comments.

The atmosphere over cooperation on some domestic issues is brighter going into Tuesday's scheduled State of the Union, given comments by the two Democrats and the White House.

Pelosi listed numerous issues -- such as developing alternative energy sources, immigration policy, reauthorizing the "No Child Left Behind" education program, funding basic scientific research, curbing the federal budget deficit, reforming health care policy, helping the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina, and combatting global warming -- on which Democrats will push legislation that she hopes can be bipartisan and get Bush's support.

She said Americans "want to see their leaders focus on American priorities, and they want us to work together for the American people."

Bush plans to address many of those topics in his annual speech -- the first the president will deliver before a Congress controlled by the opposition Democrats.

"Americans should expect a discussion of the commonsense principles that will provide the basis for President Bush's approach to governing with a new Congress," Perino said.

She said the speech will differ from the usual State of the Union in that it won't be the usual "laundry list of proposals."

Since the November election, Bush has shown a more conciliatory approach toward the Democratic Congress. The president replaced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. This week, he reversed his policy on warrantless wiretaps and has indicated he would sign a minimum wage increase, which was one of Pelosi's top priorities.

But if Bush hopes to move the focus off Iraq, he probably will be disappointed. His speech will be followed immediately on network television by the Democratic response, which this year will be delivered by new Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who defeated Republican Sen. George Allen in November in part on an anti-war platform. Webb campaigned carrying the combat boots worn by his son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

URL: sfgate.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (73891)1/20/2007 11:46:59 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Open Letter to the President by Ralph Nader
___________________________________________________________

Published on Saturday, January 20, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Dear President Bush:

I have read your address to the nation on "The New Way Forward in Iraq" and wish to share some observations.

You say "where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." You then quickly change the subject. Whoa now, what does it mean when you say the responsibility for mistakes rest with you?

Responsibility for "mistakes" that led to the invasion-which other prominent officials and former officials say were based on inaccurate information, deceptions, and cover-ups?

Responsibility for the condoning of torture, even after the notorious events at abu-Gharib prison were disclosed?

Responsibility for months and months of inability to equip our soldiers with body armor and vehicle armor that resulted in over 1,000 lost American lives and many disabilities?

Responsibility for the gross mismanagement over outsourcing both service and military tasks to corporations such as Haliburton that have wasted tens of billions of dollars, including billions that simply disappeared without account?

Responsibility for serious undercounting of official U.S. injuries in Iraq-because the injuries were not incurred in direct combat-so as to keep down political opposition to the war in this country?

Over and over again, during your political campaigns you called for consequences to attach to bad or failing behavior. Responsibility means consequences, you said.

Well just how does that belief apply to you, as a failed and disastrous commander-in-chief and caretaker of both American soldiers, American tax dollars and, under international law, the safety of Iraqi civilians?

You said, "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister... that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.." But you have stated on many prior occasions that a U.S. retreat from Iraq would be catastrophic. Now you imply that if the Iraqi government does not deliver, the U.S. commitment will end. Which is it?

And the Iraq war has lost the support of the American people some time ago.

What are the people to believe "not open-ended" means? Especially since your new Secretary of Defense told the Congress that within two months it will be known whether your troop escalation strategy is working or not.

You said that your Administration will "partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division." Why do you continue to use misleading euphemisms? They are not "coalition brigades"-they are U.S. soldier brigades. Even the British want to draw down their small number of troops.

You said that a discovered al Qaeda document describes "the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of [Anbar Province]." "This would bring al Qaeda," you asserted, "closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad." Since your field commanders' estimate a total of 1300 al Qaeda, mostly foreign fighters, widely disliked and increasingly opposed by the local people and their tribal leaders, why are you continuing to engage in this preposterous sequence of doom, this politics of mega fear ala your neo-conservative advisors? Why indeed, do you do this when your own intelligence officials, including your former Director of the CIA, Porter J. Goss, and military leaders in Iraq, have said publicly that the U.S. military occupation has been a magnet for the attraction and training of more and more terrorists, including those from other countries who will acquire demolition and other skills before leaving Iraq.

Your comment that victory in Iraq will bring a "functioning democracy that. upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people," invites the response, "Have you done this in our country?"

Given your serial civil liberties' violations, frequent mockery of the rule of law and our Constitution, and your ignoring the judgment of last November's election (not to mention the desire by 70 percent of U.S. soldiers polled last January in Iraq wanting you to leave within 6 to 12 months), there is a pronounced lack of consistency here.

Finally, you conclude that "We mourn the loss of every fallen American-and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve."

Why not some exemplary sacrifice from the Bush family? What is keeping those bright, capable daughters-Jenna and Barbara-from showing that the family is not expecting everybody but the Bush family to sacrifice? Why are they not demonstrating their sacrifice and resolve for your Iraq democracy war by enlisting into the armed forces?

Could it be that they disagree with your policies? Or could it be that they do not consider your war-quagmire "worthy of their sacrifice?"



To: American Spirit who wrote (73891)1/21/2007 12:13:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
How Congress Can Stop the Iran Attack - Or be Complicit in Nuclear War Crimes

commondreams.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (73891)1/21/2007 12:29:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton Enters ‘08 Field, Fueling Race for Money
_____________________________________________________________

By PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY
THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 21, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped into the 2008 presidential race yesterday, immediately squaring off against Senator Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic field in what is effectively the party’s first primary, the competition for campaign donations.

“I’m in,” Mrs. Clinton said in an e-mail message to supporters early yesterday. “And I’m in to win.”

If successful, Mrs. Clinton, 59, would be the first female nominee of a major American political party, and she would become the first spouse of a former president to seek a return to the White House.

Her entrance into the race followed Mr. Obama’s by less than a week, and highlighted the urgency for her of not falling behind in the competition for money, especially in New York, her home turf, where the battle has already reached a fever pitch. It also set off rounds of e-mail messages and conference calls among both her allies and opponents. [Page 27.]

George Soros, the billionaire New York philanthropist, has made maximum donations in the past to both candidates, for instance, and last week he faced a choice: support Mr. Obama, who created his committee on Tuesday, or stay neutral and see what Mrs. Clinton and others had to say. In this case, Mr. Obama won.

Mr. Soros sent the maximum contribution, $2,100, to Mr. Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois, just hours after he declared his plans to run.

“Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader,” said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Mr. Soros.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential operation is only one day old, but she already finds herself in a breakneck competition against Mr. Obama for fund-raising supremacy in two towns that she and her husband have mined heavily for political gold: New York and Hollywood. Mr. Obama’s entrance into the race has also put up for grabs other groups that are primary targets for Mrs. Clinton, including African-Americans and women.

At this early stage in the nomination fight, securing donations and signing up fund-raisers are among the best ways of showing political strength in a crowded field (seven Democrats and counting). And Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are looking to raise at least $75 million this year alone.

Advisers said yesterday that they had begun corralling donors to build quickly on the formidable $14 million that Mrs. Clinton already had in the bank. They predicted that they would outpace Mr. Obama, though they acknowledged that he is moving impressively to try to match Mrs. Clinton’s national fund-raising network, which has been in the making far longer than his.

Mrs. Clinton faces some fatigue among donors after more than 15 years of Clinton fund-raising, Democratic contributors and strategists said, and some skepticism about whether she can win. Yet she has the Democrats’ most popular rainmaker at her full disposal, former President Bill Clinton, and she has influential friends like the lawyer and power broker Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to help keep African-American donors and others by her side.

Notably, no prominent Clinton fund-raiser has moved to Mr. Obama’s camp (though his aides are working on it). Mrs. Clinton has also lined up a powerful roster of fund-raising and economic advisers in New York, including the financiers Roger Altman, Steven Rattner, Blair W. Effron, Alan Patricof and Mr. Rattner’s wife, Maureen White, a former finance chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

“Maureen and I will happily do everything we can to help her,” Mr. Rattner said. “Based on our long relationship with her, we feel that she has demonstrated incontrovertibly that she would be an effective candidate and a terrific president.”

For all of the attention swirling around Mr. Obama, meanwhile, he faces many obstacles as he seeks to become the nation’s first black president. His background, including a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, has elevated his appeal, but it does little to answer questions about whether he has the experience to serve in the White House.

Picking off Clinton loyalists is no easy task, either. Hours after opening his fund-raising committee on Tuesday, Mr. Obama convened separate conference calls with donors in Chicago and on the East and West Coasts; in the East Coast phone call, according to participants, Mr. Obama asked them to keep an open mind about his candidacy even if they had been allies of Mrs. Clinton.

James Torrey, chairman of the global hedge fund Torrey Funds, said he signed on with Mr. Obama not as a snub to Mrs. Clinton, but because he believed that the Illinois senator had the best chance of inspiring Democrats and other voters.

“I know it’s perceived as an anti-Hillary thing,” Mr. Torrey said in an interview Friday. “I think she’s marvelous, I think she’s a great senator, but I’d rather see Barack Obama as president. I think the Republicans will make it their life’s work to bring her down.”

Several New York and Hollywood donors offered a similar assessment: they liked Mrs. Clinton as a senator, but worried that her rating in a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll released Saturday was at 41 percent, despite having nearly 100 percent name recognition.

Some of her veteran supporters in New York are now on the fence, including the business executives Orin S. Kramer and Robert Zimmerman, who are active in Democratic politics. Others say they plan to play it safe and contribute to both candidates. In Los Angeles, the producers David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg are working to plan a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama after he officially enters the race, which he is scheduled to do on Feb. 10. Mr. Geffen has signed on with Mr. Obama, while Mr. Katzenberg and Mr. Spielberg have not decided which candidate to formally endorse.

Yet hedging bets with a spread of donations could prove perilous with the Clinton camp, said Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator who is president of the New School University.

“The Clintons value loyalty, and I don’t think they are going to risk offending her,” Mr. Kerrey said of Mrs. Clinton’s traditional supporters, noting that he spoke to several undecided Democrats last week. Referring to Mr. Obama, he added: “He’s got to reach out to Hillary’s supporters and hope he can persuade some of them. If he doesn’t, she’s the nominee.”

Mr. Zimmerman said he was enthusiastic about Mrs. Clinton. Asked why he had not aligned with her yet, he said: “It’s appropriate and respectful to hear every candidate’s message.”

Mr. Obama is putting together his own finance team to focus on New York. He has hired Julianna Smoot, who helped tap Wall Street money as part of a record-setting team at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. He has also dispatched a fund-raiser, Jenny Yeager, to run his New York operation, and he is calling on Robert Wolf, chairman of UBS Americas, to raise money. (A spokeswoman for Mr. Wolf, who has donated to Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats, confirmed that he planned to help Mr. Obama.)

In New York, chief executives, lawyers, entertainers, gay men and lesbians, African-Americans and women have been prominent in political fund-raising for decades — though usually they are picking among outsiders, not hometown friends and allies. Yet the 2008 race will test personal and political loyalties, with Mrs. Clinton preparing to announce a run and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and perhaps former Gov. George E. Pataki moving to seek the Republican nomination. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is also being encouraged to run as an independent.

The attention given to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama is making fund-raising that much more difficult for other Democrats. While former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina still hopes to tap into a network of supporters among trial lawyers, his former profession, and to build an army of grass-roots donors, strategists for other candidates conceded that raising money would be an uphill battle and said it was an open question whether there was room for more than one alternative to Mrs. Clinton.

“I just got off the phone with someone who said, ‘It’s between Edwards and Obama,’ and with a little nudging I pushed him over to the Obama camp,” said Jeh Johnson, a partner at the Paul, Weiss law firm in New York who has been making fund-raising calls on behalf of Mr. Obama.

Mr. Johnson, who was general counsel for the Air Force in the Clinton administration, said younger Democrats and women — crucial parts of Mrs. Clinton’s base — were excited about Mr. Obama. “I haven’t encountered many New Yorkers who say, ‘No, I’m not interested, I’m a Hillary supporter,’ ” he said.

The competition for supporters — and contributors — extends well beyond New York. And Mr. Obama could complicate Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts in Chicago, another lucrative base for Democrats. In her Senate re-election bid last year, she raised nearly $700,000 from Illinois, her native state.

One Democratic operative, who has knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising operation in the Midwest, called donors in Chicago last week after Mr. Obama’s announcement, asking whether it would be foolhardy to sign onto the Clinton campaign if he was in the race. While party officials say Mr. Obama will have an advantage in Chicago, they said Mrs. Clinton would still find considerable support there.

While Mr. Obama has never run a national campaign, his political action committee, the Hopefund, has attracted a broad base of contributors from across the country.

In the New York entertainment industry, too, Mr. Obama’s candidacy has received raves. Hours after his announcement Tuesday, the Broadway producer Margo Lion sent out an e-mail message urging her friends to donate to him — making clear that the theater community was not locked down by Mrs. Clinton.

“Along with many others in the industry, I will be producing a fund-raiser at the St. James Theater later this spring” for Mr. Obama, Ms. Lion wrote. “We need to find a new direction for our country, and finally, we have the man to do it.”

-Patrick Healy reported from New York, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington. Campbell Robertson contributed reporting from New York.