News and Current Events

House passes new war funding measure

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/10/bush.pentagon/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN)—The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a $96 billion war spending measure, despite a veto threat from President Bush.

The bill, passed 221-205, funds U.S. combat operations into July.

Additional funding would be dependent upon progress in the four-year-old war, based on a review of how well the Iraqi government was meeting a series of benchmarks.

Unlike the bill Bush vetoed on May 1, this measure sets no timetables.

The vote sends the bill to the Senate, where Republican and Democratic leaders have been trying to work out a compromise with the White House.

The administration has said it wants to see a bill that funds the war through September, the end of the budget year.

The additional troops requested by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, won’t be in place until the middle of June, when the fifth and last brigade arrives. Three additional American brigades, totaling about 12,000 troops, have taken up positions and are conducting operations. The fourth American brigade of reinforcements just entered Baghdad and its surrounding towns, Bush said.

“My message to the members of Congress is, ‘Whatever your beliefs may be, let’s make sure our troops get funded. And let’s make sure politicians don’t tell our commanders how to conduct operations. Let’s don’t hamstring our people in the field.’ That’s my message,” the president said.

Earlier Thursday, the House voted down a Democratic proposal to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 180 days.

Bush open to benchmarks
Earlier Thursday, Bush said he will veto any bill with “haphazard, piecemeal funding,” but agreed that setting benchmarks is a good way to evaluate progress in Iraq.

Bush said he has asked his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, to find common ground with Republicans and Democrats in Congress on benchmarks.

The president made his remarks after a meeting at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace and Joint Chiefs members.

In the past, the Bush administration has opposed timetables with consequences attached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, welcomed the president’s willingness to set benchmarks, but added that “simple benchmarks without any consequences” would not be enough.

“In addition to fully funding the troops, Congress believes the best way to change course in Iraq is to redeploy our forces from Iraq; refocus the mission of the remaining forces on security, training and counterterror operations; launch a diplomatic, economic and political offensive; and hold Iraq accountable, including meaningful benchmarks for the Iraqi government and security forces—and consequences if they do not,” he said in a written statement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, echoed Reid in a written response to Bush’s remarks.

“The president has long said he supports benchmarks; what he fails to accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks. Benchmarks without consequences and enforcement are meaningless, a blank check,” the statement said.

The Bush administration has asked for more than $95 billion to pay for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of which would go to Iraq.

Bush, GOP lawmakers hold ‘candid’ talk about Iraq
The president’s remarks about benchmarks come two days after he and other high-level administration officials met with a group of 11 GOP lawmakers to talk about their frustrations with the war in Iraq and its possible political ramifications.

White House spokesman Tony Snow, who attended the meeting, said that while “there were a wide range of views” expressed, not all of the participants lashed out at Bush. He also cautioned against elevating the significance of the meeting, noting that Bush has numerous meetings with lawmakers in both parties.

One source who attended the meeting, which was first reported by NBC News, said lawmakers “were candid and frank and said they needed results by September because their constituents were worried,” although the source said the sentiment was no different than what Republicans have been saying in public and during previous White House meetings.

Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, told Bush that without positive results soon in Iraq, his district will be prepared for defeat, the source said.

A senior GOP lawmaker told CNN that House Minority Leader John Boehner brought the members down to “speak directly with the president” and the “members were matter-of-fact about what they said to him.”

Administration officials at the meeting included Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the president’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

CNN’s Ed Henry, Dana Bash and Ted Barrett contributed to this report

More War, With a Peace Label

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-10 11:57

LIVE BLOGGING

8:12 p.m. There are now 12 heroes in the House, up from 10 at the last Supplemental vote. At this rate we’ll end the war this century for sure The heroes are the two Republicans who voted No who we know oppose funding the war: Ron Paul and John Duncan, plus the eight Democrats who voted No last time and this time again: Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Mike McNulty, and Mike Michaud, plus the two new heroes added to the list: Democratic Representatives Pete Stark and John Tanner.

They deserve our thanks and our praise. But they did not press their colleagues to join them. Stark voted present last time and No this time, almost certainly not because he learned the war was illegal and disastrous, but because Pelosi found an extra couple of Republicans to vote for the war this time, so Stark and Tanner didn’t have to. In this day and age, voting No only when there are enough people to vote Yes for war is our highest measure of heroism. When will that change? When will we demand more of Congress Members? When will activist organizations stop playing along with Congressional frauds (like the one of the past 12 hours in which everyone promoted Yes votes on McGovern’s bill but kept quiet about the Supplemental, or mentioned it in a one-line whisper at the end of a long Email)? We just saw 171 Members of Congress vote to end the war, and all but 12 of them turn around and vote to continue the war. Guess which vote they’ll be talking about when they come home for Memorial Day. Tell them which vote you’re going to remember.

7:59 p.m. The bill to dump more money into this war without even a nonbinding date to end it passed 221-205, with 2 Republicans shamefully joining 219 disgraceful Democrats in voting Yes, 10 Democrats heroically voting No because they oppose funding the war, and 195 Republicans voting No - most of them because they love war even more than the Democrats and wanted an even worse bill. Last time around on the supplemental, when it had a nonbinding end date in it, 8 Democrats voted No and 2 Republicans voted No for the right reasons. They were heroes: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/heroes - This time around, we probably can identify Republicans who voted No for the right reasons, and we probably have 12 heroes. Who’s newly on the list? And who, if anyone, drops off it?

7:52 p.m. Motion to send to committee failed by 229-195, with 3 Dems voting Yes and 3 Repubs voting No. Now there is a 5-min vote on the Supplemental War Money Bill. Not one member spoke on the floor against funding this war. Not one member spoke on the floor about the privatization of the oil. Not one member mentioned the permanent bases. Not one member mentioned Iran. Not one member challenged the idea that the money is “for the troops.” I continue to maintain that the war will not end until that particular piece of nonsense is challenged forcefully by someone in Congress.

7:48 p.m. time’s up but they’re still counting votes.

7:30 p.m. A 15-minute vote is underway to send the bill back to committee.

7:26 p.m. Rep Jerry Lewis moves to recommit the Supplemental war money bill to committee (that is, kill it for the moment).

7:22 p.m. Rep. Jack Murtha is going on and on about everything in the bill for veterans’ health care, etc. (But why not fund those things without funding more war?)

7:17 p.m. Rep. Lynn Woolsey puts out a press release like Lee’s, while Murtha is still speaking.

7:16 p.m. Rep Barbara Lee did not take the floor. No, she sent me a press release bragging about the McGovern vote. Meanwhile not one progressive has taken the floor to speak against the Supplemental vote. We’re all glad 171 members voted for McGovern’s bill, but who will vote against the war money?

7:15 p.m. Rep. Jack Murtha claims this bill is about “changing direction” and about “accountability” and “redeployment.” How so?

7:13 p.m. Rep. Dan Burton, another Republican, claims this is a World War like World War II and is against Al Qaeda, which is trying to attack the United States of America. He seems mentally unstable. He says the enemy in Iraq is the same people who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. “Are you going to wait until they blow up Indianapolis?”

7:11 p.m. Rep. Jeff Flake is complaining about pork in the bill.

7:10 p.m. DILO says he only wants one more Democratic speaker, so the Republicans, with two remaining should go next. This even though not a single Democrats opposed to the bill has been permitted to speak.

7:07 p.m. Rep John Kline says Bush will veto.

6:59 p.m. Speaker Pelosi is now thanking her colleagues for pushing the Supplemental war funding bill. Then she claims the bill is about ending the war. I kid you not. A bill that has stripped out even a nonbinding request to partially end the war some day is a bill to end the war. Orwell would be awed. Pelosi does call it “the president’s war without end,” which is right. But when - for the love of peace - will she ever end the damn thing? Can Pelosi not grasp that she can end the war by accepting Bush’s veto and not proposing a new bill at all? What duty does she have to defy the American people and fund more war?

6:57 p.m. Rep. Jack Kingston says the bill is cruel to the troops because it threatens to not keep funding them forever if certain things aren’t accomplished.

6:53 p.m. Rep. Rahm Emanuel is up. This should be ugly. Yep. He claims this bill opposes a military solution and supports a political solution. Huh? By funding war? He blames the Iraqis. Then he goes back to claiming this is about funding “the troops” - even though it’s about a “political solution.”

6:51 p.m. Rep. Mike Pence calls the bill micromanaging of the war.

6:43 p.m. Rep Steny Hoyer claims the last bill passed and vetoed, and this one, both “fully fund the troops.” STILL NOT ONE VOICE AGAINST THIS BILL FOR THE RIGHT REASONS HAS BEEN PERMITTED TO TAKE THE FLOOR. Hoyer brags that this bill goes after the victims of Bush’s war, the Iraqis, by “holding them accountable.” NOT ONE WORD YET FROM EITHER SIDE ON THE OIL LAW THAT IS CENTRAL TO THIS BILL. Wow, just as I was writing that, Hoyer mentioned “fair distribution” of the oil, which is how they describe the law that would give the bulk of Iraq’s oil to foreign corporations. VOTE NO, YOU SPINELESS MURDERING FASCISTS!

6:41 p.m. Rep. Todd Tiahrt claims Bush will veto the bill for several stupid reasons. He claims it’s “for the troops” who are waiting not only for “the equipment they need” but also for “the troops they need.”

6:40 p.m. Rep. Rush Holt claims the bill is a bill to oppose Bush’s war.

6:34 p.m. Minority Leader John Boner [sic] says the Democrats have refused to work with the Republicans. (Well, then what the hell do you call this bill?) Boner actually claimed that every member of congress but one voted to send “our troops” to Iraq. (Is he thinking of Rep. Barbara Lee’s courageous solo vote against the criminal attack on AFGHANISTAN?)

6:32 p.m. Rep. Joe Sestak, who was elected to end the war, says the bill is no good but is a “step” toward a decent bill, so he will vote for it.

6:31 p.m. Rep. Peter Kind says this is a bill for the enemies, terrorists, etc. Says the Congress should obey the Generals and, yes, “our troops.”

6:29 p.m. DILO is replying in defense of pork and other items that he’s piled into this bill.

6:26 p.m. Rep. Paul Ryan is feining distress on behalf of “our troops” who are clearly upset not by being left in Iraq but by the war funding being handled every two months instead of every four months. Can anyone find a troop who gives a shit?

6:25 p.m. Rep. Ike Skelton is experiencing verbal diarrhea explaining that the bill is about “readiness” for “the troops.” THUS FAR NO MEMBER OPPOSING THE BILL FOR THE RIGHT REASONS HAS BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO THE FLOOR.

6:19 p.m. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is babbling about how she loves militarism and God more than others.

6:16 p.m. DILO and Rep. Israel are defending their “support for our troops.” They both make clear that they already believe that the war is hopeless and will believe that again in 2 months. (So why vote for more war tonight?)

6:06 p.m. Republican Jerry Lewis now speaking against the bill, and rightly so, but for absurd and nasty reasons.

5:58 p.m. DILO (David “Idiot Liberals” Obey) proposed the Supplemental for a debate and vote. He claimed much of the money was “for the troops.” (How so? It won’t bring them home, tell them the truth, or treat them any differently from how they are already being treated.) DILO mentioned the “benchmarks” but not what they are, and certainly not that one of them involves essentially stealing Iraq’s oil.

5:56 p.m. Motion to go into secret session has failed 216 to 198. At least three Democrats voted Yes.

5:50 p.m. Motion to go into secret session and hide from the public is losing thus far 204-186.

5:40 p.m. There is now a 15-minute vote underway on whether to go into closed session and keep the nosy public out of the room. Then there will be a debate and vote on the Supplemental. Let’s hope Members got the message that they NEED TO VOTE NO. 169 Democratic No votes, combined with the Republicans, would more than kill this bill.

5:38 p.m. McGovern’s bill is defeated by a vote of 255 to 171. 196 Republicans voted No and 2 voted YES. 169 Democrats voted YES, BUT 59 SELL OUT SPINELESS WARMONGERING WORTHLESS DEMOCRATS voted NO. 171 is not bad - imagine if Pelosi had focused her efforts on pressuring, bribing, threatening members to back it, the way she’s done with the Supplementals? And many of those who voted Yes may turn right around in the next hour and vote Yes for war money. Let’s hope no one on the side of the angels is celebrating 171 decent votes for peace that accomplished nothing. Here is the roll call of who voted which way. 7 members did not vote at all, including these four Democrats: Brady (PA); Brown, Corrine; Engel; Fattah. THESE ARE THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS AGAINST PEACE: Altmire, Barrow, Bean, Berkley, Berman, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS), Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Cuellar, Davis, Lincoln, Donnelly, Edwards, Ellsworth, Etheridge, Giffords, Gordon, Green, Gene, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holden, Hoyer, Kind, Lampson, Lipinski, Mahoney (FL), Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, McNerney, Melancon, Mitchell, Moore (KS), Ortiz, Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Rodriguez, Ross, Ruppersberger, Salazar, Schwartz, Scott (GA), Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Tanner, Taylor, Udall (CO), Wilson (OH).

5:31 p.m. Motion to recommit failed in a tight vote. Voice vote on McGovern passed in the opinion of the chair. A recorded vote was requested and is now underway.

5:30 p.m. we’re looking at perhaps 140 to 150 members ready to vote YES on McGovern’s bill, but first they have to be allowed to vote on it. Meanwhile there is a vote on the floor on a Republican proposal to send McGovern’s bill back to the Armed Services Committee - and the problem is that there are sell-out Democrats voting for this motion to recommit.

Holbrooke: Iraq civil war is raging out of control By Arshad Mohammed

Thu May 10, 3:58 PM ET

Richard Holbrooke, a former senior U.S. diplomat and a possible Democratic secretary of state, on Thursday described Iraq as a “civil war raging out of control” and a foreign policy crisis worse than Vietnam.

Holbrooke, who has served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as the top U.S. diplomat for Europe and for East Asia, said it would likely fall to the next U.S. president to decide whether and how to extricate America from the conflict.

Regarded as a potential secretary of state if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, Holbrooke delivered an unsparing assessment of U.S. President George W. Bush’s foreign policy during a lecture on U.S.-Turkish relations.

“On every side Turkey faces challenges of enormous proportions,” he said. “To the south and southeast, neighbors called Iran and Iraq—one a dangerous, destabilizing religious dictatorship, the other a civil war raging out of control.”

“Iraq already presents us with the worst situation internationally in modern American history. Worse even than Vietnam,” Holbrooke added, noting he served in Saigon and worked on Vietnam in Washington and at the Paris peace talks.

“I never thought I would say anything was worse than Vietnam but Iraq, my friends, is worse than Vietnam,” he said, voicing hope that the current U.S. offensive will succeed but saying the chances of this “are not high.”

Following Bush’s January announcement of a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, the Pentagon is increasing U.S. force levels in Iraq by about 30,000 troops in an attempt to regain control of security and to reduce sectarian violence.

There are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq more than four years after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

“If it does not succeed, then the United States will face an even more difficult set of choices,” he added, describing these as increasing troop levels, holding them steady, trying to disengage from “the battle of Baghdad” while fighting al Qaeda elsewhere in Iraq, or simply withdrawing.

“You can assume, safely, the current administration will reject the last option ... and look for ways to salvage something from the wreckage of its own misguided policies,” he added.

As a result, he said Bush would bequeath his successor the war in Iraq, the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, where about 26,000 U.S. troops confront a renewed Taliban insurgency, as well as the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.

“We must assume ... that the next president will inherit the most difficult foreign policy challenges ever to land in the Oval Office on day one,” he said.

“Whoever it is, the odds are very high that disengagement from Iraq—unless the war is clearly being won—will be a very high priority,” he said. “Any withdrawal ... should not be done precipitously, of course, but no one can predict now what the next president will actually confront.”

Gonzales: ‘I Haven’t Really Thought About’ Habeas Corpus

U

nder the Bush administration, U.S. citizens can be detained as enemy combatants and arrested without being charged of any crime.

At today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether any U.S. citizens are “being held today, for over a month, who have been denied habeas corpus or access to an attorney.� Instead of giving an answer, Gonzales replied, “[Y]ou’re asking me a question I hadn’t really thought about.�

Sherman then followed up and asked whether there any “U.S. citizens being held now by foreign governments or foreign organizations, without access to attorneys, as a result of rendition.� Gonzales again said, “It’s just — quite frankly, I hadn’t thought about this.�

Watch it:

When Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, he claimed that there is “no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.� Today, Sherman asked Gonzales, “Wouldn’t it be your duty as Attorney General to make sure that their [U.S. citizens’] rights to habeas corpus were honored?� After some hedging, Gonzales finally agreed: “Yes.�

Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald have more on the habeas fight. Sign a petition telling Congress to restore habeas corpus.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=habeas_petition

DeLay Calls Liberals Nazis, Then Claims ‘Only’ Liberals Make Nazi References

ThinkProgress.org
05/10/07

Writing on his blog this morning, ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) accuses liberals and “the radical left� of being the “only� people who enjoy “likening the United States to Nazi Germany,� ignoring his own past comments comparing American liberals to “the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler.�

Noting a recent speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which the head of state apparently compared U.S foreign policy to that of the Third Reich, DeLay hypocritically launched into an attack on liberals:

Odd, I only thought it was the radical left in our own nation which enjoys likening the United States to Nazi Germany. Apparently this disease has spread to Russia as well.

As recently as last month, DeLay has made comments comparing American liberals to Nazis. On April 10, appearing on WERS radio in Boston, DeLay claimed that the process that saw him indicted for money laundering, which would be the American legal system, “is the same process� that led to the Holocaust: “it may be six million jews, it may be indicting someone on laws that don’t exist, but it’s the same philosophy, it’s the same world view,� said DeLay.

DeLay also compared liberals to Nazis in his recently released book, “No Retreat, No Surrender�:

“I believe it was Adolf Hitler who first acknowledged that the big lie is more effective than the little lie, because the big lie is so audacious, such an astonishing immorality, that people have a hard time believing anyone would say it if it wasn’t true. You know, the big lie — like the Holocaust never happened or dark-skinned people are less intelligent than light-skinned people. Well, by charging this big lie� — that DeLay violated campaign-finance laws in Texas — “liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler.�

DeLay is demonstrating a Gonzales-like memory when he claims that Nazi analogies are an exclusive tool of liberals. In fact, DeLay and many of his conservative allies, are more than happy to make Nazi references if it suits their political aims.