| (04/06/2007) |
| Florida rep.’s tough new bill could set stage for clash with administration as diplomacy quickens. |
 With the pace of U.S. Mideast diplomacy quickening, the congressional battle over aid and diplomatic contact with the Palestinian Authority may be about to erupt anew as a leading pro-Israel congresswoman tries to throw new hurdles in the path of the Bush administration. |
Thursday, April 5, 2007
New Fight Brewing On PA Aid, Contacts
Friday, March 30, 2007
The 'withdrawal' that isn't
IN JANUARY, President Bush announced the start of a "surge" that wasn't really a surge. Now the House and Senate have responded with a "withdrawal" that isn't really a withdrawal.
Last week, the House passed a bill that many believe would set hard deadlines for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This week, the Senate followed suit. The House bill would require that troop withdrawals start immediately if the president cannot certify that Iraq or the United States are meeting benchmarks in the war. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days. Even if the United States and Iraq are successful in reducing violence, the bill requires the United States to start a withdrawal by March 2008 and complete it by that August. The Senate bill requires a withdrawal to be complete by March 2008. Supporters of both bills claim they are forcing a withdrawal from Iraq, but a look at the fine print reveals otherwise.
First, to reverse the current surge the House bill requires the president to certify that every Army unit deploying to Iraq for a year-long tour of duty have a minimum of 365 days back home before deployment. (Marine units that deploy for seven months would have 210 days back home.) In addition, units in Iraq could not be extended beyond their one year (or seven months) assignment. This might be an effective way to halt the surge, except for the fact that the bill also allows the president to waive these restrictions in the interest of "national security." It's likely that the president already believes that he is acting in the interest of national security, making these restrictions superfluous.
Although the House and Senate bills set clear timelines for withdrawal of US troops, they also permit some troops to remain in Iraq as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting US facilities, citizens, or forces; combating Al Qaeda or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces. How many troops are we talking about? Potentially as many as have been there for the past three years.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Congressional Democrats are a Pathetic Embarrassment
"not binding" translated: BULLSHIT.
---
Friday, March 23, 2007
What a pathetic joke this nominally Democratic Congress has proven to be.
Despite polls showing that 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq asap, the best that this crew can come up with is a call--not binding, of course--for the president to pull out the troops by next spring or even summer. That would be over a year from now, and more than five years (!) into this criminal and incredibly stupid war.
At the rate things have been going, it would also be perhaps 1000 more dead Americans, 14,000 more gravely wounded Americans, and 100-150,000 more dead Iraqis later.
And in offering this limp request, Congress is in the process of approving the appropriation of another $124 million in spending on the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan.
This is action? They could be blocking that funding altogether, and shutting the damned war down. Why can’t Democrats, who were put in their position of power in Congress by the voters, at least show the courage and principle of Republican Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), who is opposing the funding and says, “It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November.”
And those subpoenas. Congress is boldly demanding the appearance of Bush’s Rasputin Karl Rove and his ousted legal adviser Harriet Meirs. Fine as far as it goes, but what about the clear evidence at the Libby trial that his regent, Dick Cheney, orchestrated a smear campaign against administration critic Joe Wilson and his CIA wife Valerie Plame, obstructed the Justice Department investigation into that effort, and lied about what he had done? Shouldn’t there be subpoenas issued to the Veep himself and all of his staff?
What about the evidence at that same trial that the president himself was in on the cover-up and obstruction of justice conspiracy. Shouldn’t there be subpoenas of staff to pin that down, and a letter of interrogatories to the president himself?
While they’re at it, shouldn’t this 110th Congress that the people elected last fall in an effort to clean out the Augean stables of the Bush White House and to end the war be initiating an impeachment of the president, at least on his admitted felonious violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law? After all, a federal judge already tried that case and determined that the president is a felon. That’s an easy case to impeach on.
They could also be revoking the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. That’s the resolution Congress passed on September 18, 2001, which the president has ever since been claiming makes him a dictator--that is commander in chief in a borderless, endless “war” on terror--not beholden to the Constitution, and free to ignore or invalidate acts of Congress at will. It’s an astonishing abuse of power, exactly what the Founding Fathers feared could happen, and yet Congress is doing exactly nothing about it.
There’s no need for the 2001 AUMF. We’re not at war in Afghanistan anymore, after all. There is a new, elected government there, and it has invited in NATO to help it fight a resurgent Taliban. We’re just there as part of NATO, and so hardly need a special AUMF--especially one that can be falsely construed as an authorization to be a dictator. So why isn’t Congress revoking the damned thing?
The could revoke the 2002 AUMF too. Bush misused that one as an authorization to go to war against Iraq, since it actually required him to go to the UN for authorization--something he never bothered to do. In any event, we’re not at war in Iraq either, as much as it might look like we are. The war in Iraq is over folks. We’re not even occupiers there any more. Remember, we handed sovereignty over to the Iraqis in 2004! There’s an elected government in Iraq==an independent government--and we’re there at their invitation to help them with an insurrection problem. That’s not a war, any more than it’s a war in Columbia, where we’ve also sent troops at the Columbian government’s request. So why doesn’t Congress revoke the AUMF? It would be a good idea, because Bush is liable to misuse it further and claim it gives him the right to attack Iran at will. He’s said as much.
Again, listen to Republican Ron Paul, who says, “Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home. If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it. The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public.” (Of course, Rep. Paul has his own issues when it comes to guts. He has publicly stated that the president has committed impeachable crimes, and yet he has shied away from doing the obvious, and appropriate, thing: submitting a bill of impeachment. If he does do it, it would be the ultimate shaming of Democrats in the House.)
I’m fed up with the gutless mini-politics of this Congress. Who gives a damn whether they’ve passed a minimum wage bill? It’ll never get past Bush anyhow. Neither will anything else of consequence that this Congress passes.
Unless they start challenging the Bush administration directly and forcefully, Congressional Democrats aren’t going to do bupkis in two years and people are going to start wondering why they were voted in in the first place. People might even start to think seriously about letting the Democratic Party just wither away.
Wouldn’t make much of a difference without it, really, and we might even come up with something better. It wouldn’t be too hard to do.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
WHY WE NEED THE "WE THE PEOPLE" ACT (H.R. 300)
March 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
The United States of America was created to be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A Constitutionally limited republic is restricted to the protection of individual rights. As outlined in our Constitution, the role of the federal government is strictly controlled in well-defined responsibilities. According to the 10th Amendment, all other powers and responsibilities are assigned to the 50 individual, sovereign States, which also are Republican governments.
A democracy is ruled by a majority of votes. Under such a system, no rights may be guaranteed since a simple majority can overturn them. The result of a democracy is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights.
Today, judges in federal courts are handing down decisions that many times over turn specific State laws that should be protected by the 10th Amendment. The assault on our Republican form of government by the use of such judicial powers affects all aspects of our society.
The common term is "activist judges." Many believe a more accurate term is "Constitutionally-defiant" judges. So great is their power that school boards are literally banning everything from voluntary prayer in schools to wearing a tee shirt with a Christian message, for fear federal courts will take action against school officials. Now even state and local courts are making identical rulings from fear of being overturned by higher courts.
Problem:
1. Federal judges are using their bench power to effectively make laws that have not been Constitutionally created by Congress.
[Read: Imperial Judiciary]
2. In recent years Federal judges regularly have struck down State and local laws in subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion.
3. This "government by Federal judiciary" causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal Power.
4. Further, when Federal judges impose their preferred policies on State and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by duly elected legislatures, city councils and county commissions – bodies duly elected by – and thus accountable – to the people, our republican form of government is threatened.
5. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has issued decisions that, in effect, have overturned abortion laws of all 50 states.
6. There is looming danger that Federal judges with political agendas will use their bench powers to overturn voter-approved ballot measures and legislative efforts in such issues as the definition of marriage.
As a result of this abuse of judicial power, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said, "Congress has a responsibility to protect the states from threats to their republican form of government, whether by a foreign power or one of the other two branches. Government by judiciary is incompatible with republican government. Therefore Congress must act to rein in the out-of-control federal judiciary."
Solution:
To that end, Congressman Paul has introduced the "We the People" Act, (H.R. 300)
1. Congress has a constitutional duty to act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.
2. The "We the People" Act prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from making decisions on any claim, or relying on previous judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
The Act is specifically designed to insure federal judges observe the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which assigns to the States any powers not specifically assigned to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution.
3. The "We the People" Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage.
4. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by Congress.
Specific points to consider:
1. Attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public domain increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of citizens of those jurisdictions. Under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas (for example) should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
2. Unless Congress acts by passing legislation such as the "We The People" Act, a State's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.
3. Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officers, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
How to Pass the "We the People" Act:
ACTION TO TAKE: There is only one way the "We The People" Act will get a fair hearing and a vote in the Congress. It needs co-sponsors – lots oof them.
1. Call or write your Congressman and tell him/her to take a stand against activist judges by supporting the "We The People" Act (H.R.300). Most importantly, urge them to sign on as cosponsors of the bill. The bill needs at least 100 cosponsors, to get a fair hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.
Phone calls and letters are the most effective way to contact Congress. E-mails and faxes are many times ignored. Members of Congress have been changing their e-mail addresses and fax numbers when we send out alerts. You can send an e-mail by going to each member's website at http://thomas.gov.
How to call:
Place a call to the U.S. Capitol Switchboard:
(202) 225-3121.
Ask for your congressman by name and the operator will connect you to his/her office.
How to Write:
Congressman ____________ United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
2. Call or write Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to let him know you support the bill. He is the one who will determine the fate of the bill in committee.
Committee on the Judiciary Phone:
(202) 225-3951
Address:
2138 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515-6216
3. Talk to your friends and neighbors and urge them to call Congress in support of H.R. 300.
4. Post or distribute these talking points at your church, club or office. Help spread the word that there is a way to stop activist judges from usurping our constitutional rights.
Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 342-8911
E-Mail: apcmail@americanpolicy.org
Website: www.americanpolicy.org
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Democratic Leaders Further Weaken Antiwar Resolution
Democratic leaders revamp anti-war plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Thu Mar 1, 3:58 AM ET
House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdened military.
The plan could draw bipartisan support but is expected to be a tough sell to members who say they don't think it goes far enough to assuage voters angered by the four-year conflict.
Bush "hasn't to date done anything we've asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., one of a group of liberal Democrats pushing for an immediate end to the war.
Democratic protests to the war grew louder in January after they took control of Congress and Bush announced he planned to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Earlier this month, House Democrats pushed through a nonbinding resolution opposing the buildup.
Since then, Democrats have been trying to decide what to do next. Some worried that a plan by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) to restrict funding for the war would go too far. Murtha, D-Pa., is extending his support to the revised proposal.
The tactic is more likely to embarrass Bush politically than force his hand on the war. He would have to sign repeated waivers for units and report to Congress those units with equipment shortfalls and other problems.
In the Senate, a group of senior Democrats wants to repeal the 2002 measure authorizing the war and write a new resolution restricting the mission and ordering troop withdrawals to begin by this summer. But Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said Iraq would have to wait until the Senate finishes work to improve homeland security.
"That would mean we would hold off the Iraq legislation for a matter of days, not weeks," he said.
The House Democratic proposal brought a sharp response from Republicans on Wednesday.
Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., called the plan a "fig leaf" to distract the public from what he said was Democrats' ultimate goal of cutting off funds for troops in combat.
"We support full funding for our troops who are in harms way — without strings attached," said Putnam, R-Fla., after emerging from a closed-door conference meeting.
As Democrats met behind closed doors to discuss their options Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration would talk to leaders from Iran and Syria on stabilizing Iraq.
Rice announced U.S. support for the Iraq meeting, to be held in Baghdad next month, at a Senate hearing in which Democrats pressed her and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to explain what progress is being made in the Baghdad security crackdown and how soon U.S. troops will be coming home.
The decision to engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq is a major departure for U.S. policy. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group in December recommended U.S. dialogue with Iran and Syria, but until now the administration has resisted that course.
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Republican co-chairman of the panel, welcomed the shift in a speech Tuesday night. But he went further, urging the administration to include Syria in Mideast peacemaking with Israel and the Palestinians.
Baker and his Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, are expected this spring to participate in a new study on constitutional war powers. Baker will co-chair the independent panel along with Warren Christopher, who was President Clinton's secretary of State.
Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator, noted that Rice and other officials had taken pains to stress that the talks were an Iraqi initiative, which he said the administration might be using as cover to downplay suggestions of a major policy shift.
"This is a way for the administration to have discussions under a different umbrella but in a way in which they can say that they are not changing course," said Ross, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy.
The administration said its decision to take part in the Iraq conference did not represent a change of heart, although the White House has accused both Iran and Syria of deadly meddling in the war.
"We've always been inclined to participate in an Iraqi-led conference," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
House Passes Iraq Resolution With 17 Votes From G.O.P.
The House voted 246 to 182 today to denounce President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq. Two Democrats voted against the non-binding resolution.
- Roll Call Vote
- The Caucus: Q&A With Pelosi | Quotes From the House Debate
Thursday, February 15, 2007
In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It
February 12, 2007: Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
---
WATCH CONGRESSMAN PAUL ONLINE
New!
February 14, 2007:
Congressman Paul speaks on the Iraq War Resolution
---
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
February 14, 2007
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.
It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.
There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.
We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Robert Novak: Iraq resolution not about war; just a political tactic
Listening to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last weekend boast he had the votes to prevent closing Senate debate on Iraq, Republicans opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq feared the worst. The new Republican leader sounded as though he wanted to prevent passage of an anti-surge resolution at the cost of making his party look obstructionist. That's exactly what happened.
McConnell's tactics resulted in no resolution passed by the Senate any time soon. The White House was overjoyed. But Tuesday's newspaper headlines indicated a public relations fiasco for Republicans: "GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase" (Washington Post); "In Senate, GOP Blocks a Debate Over Iraq Policy" (New York Times); "Vote on Iraq is Blocked by GOP" (USA Today). Considering that outcome from a tactical victory, the Republicans might be better off with a strategic defeat. It is unclear who won in the Senate this week.
McConnell's maiden voyage as party floor leader showed he may be too much into process. Seldom has the Republican case been presented more poorly than it was Monday. But in his first big test as majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid overreached trying to control the action. The developments also showed less than full control of his own Democratic caucus.
From the start, there has been a clear Senate bipartisan majority opposed to the 21,000-troop reinforcement. But nothing is that simple in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Joseph Biden pushed a harshly worded resolution through his Foreign Relations Committee, largely on party lines. It was obvious it could not collect the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, a prerequisite in today's Senate.
The prestigious Republican Sen. John Warner drafted a more conciliatory anti-surge resolution, with substantial Democratic support. On Jan. 25, Warner wrote Biden he would not negotiate. That left Reid the choice of pressuring Democratic defectors or embracing Warner. He took the latter course, after making cosmetic changes.
But the White House and McConnell lobbied against Warner and pushed a unique new approach: Republican Sen. Judd Gregg's resolution, ignoring the surge and saying Congress "should not . . . endanger United States military forces in the field" by "elimination or reduction of funds." That is the funding question that most Democrats in Congress desperately want to avoid.
Next, Reid stretched his authority in a way that I have not seen in a half-century of Senate-watching. He decreed that, besides the Warner resolution (now co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, his Democratic successor as Armed Services Committee chairman), the Senate would vote on one Republican resolution. What made this unique was that Reid dictated that the one amendment would be not Gregg's but Sen. John McCain's, which endorsed the troop surge and could not command close to 60 votes. The Gregg amendment probably would have gotten 70 votes.
McConnell convinced Republicans that they could not let the Democratic leader pick their amendment. Reid on Monday got only 49 votes (including but two Republicans, Susan Collins and Norm Coleman) for imposing cloture on taking up the issue. Warner and Sen. Chuck Hagel, the toughest Republican critic of the surge, voted no on cloture. The Democratic caucus informed Reid Tuesday that it would not accept a compromise putting both the Warner and Gregg resolutions before the Senate. Reid set aside the whole issue rather than permit a vote that would divide and embarrass Democrats.
"Mitch McConnell is a master behind the scenes, but he has a lot to learn about going public," said a Senate Republican insider who did not want his name used. Appalled by Tuesday morning's headlines, Republicans regrouped that day by delivering a substantive message. McCain was particularly vigorous, antagonizing Reid and other Democrats by contending that anti-surge resolutions say to U.S. troops that "we think they are going to fail, and this is a vote of no confidence."
Democratic senators, given their message of the day, trooped onto the Senate floor to claim Republicans had blocked debate over Iraq. That claim might seem peculiar to C-SPAN watchers who this week listened to hours of debate over the war. The true Democratic complaint was that Republicans prevented Harry Reid from ordering parameters of that debate. The minority in the Senate, unlike the House, has rights it exercises even if Republicans characteristically have trouble explaining this to the public.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Republicans Block Senate Debate on Iraq
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
``We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people,'' said Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. The 49-47 vote was 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a ``bump in the road'' that could possibly be overcome within hours. GOP lawmakers ``welcome the debate and are happy to have it,'' he said, adding they were insisting on equal treatment for an alternative measure expected to draw strong support.
The proposal, by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces.
The political jockeying unfolded as bombings and mortar attacks killed dozens across Baghdad amid indications that a much-awaited operation to restore peace to the capital is gearing up. Bush announced last month he would beef up U.S. troop deployments to work alongside Iraqi units in an attempt to quell sectarian violence.
Democrats sought passage of a measure, supported by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that is critical of the administration's new Iraq policy. It was the first time Democrats had scheduled a sustained debate on the war since they won control over Congress in last fall's midterm elections.
``The American people do not support escalation. Last November, voters made it clear they want a change of course, not more of the same,'' said Reid. ``The president must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place, alone.''
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, echoed Reid. ``If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn't run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position,'' he said.
But Gregg differed with them. ``We should not take action once soldiers have been sent into the field and are putting their lives at risk,'' he said. ``We should not be saying to them through a resolution, which is nonbinding, that we don't think the mission you're on makes sense and we don't want you to do it.''
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota sided with Democrats on the vote. Reid switched sides at the end, a step that allows him to call for a new roll call at his discretion.
The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel so far, and costs are counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The administration has asked Congress for $245 billion more to cover the costs of the conflict through 2008.
Political maneuvering surrounding the issue has been intense, and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration supports ``Sen. McConnell's and the Republicans' right to be able to offer the amendments they want to offer.''
Behind the procedural quarrel lay uncertainty about the verdict the Senate would ultimately reach on Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional troops.
Democrats hoped to gain enough Republican votes to pass the measure expressing disagreement with Bush's decision, and to send the commander in chief an extraordinary wartime rebuke on a bipartisan vote.
It was an outcome that the White House and Senate Republican leadership hoped to avoid. They concentrated on a relatively small number of swing votes, many of them belonging to GOP senators expected to be on the ballot in 2008.
Gregg's alternative said Congress should not take ``any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.''
The measure advanced by Democrats and Warner said the same thing, but it also said the Senate ``disagrees with the `plan' to augment our forces by 21,500 and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives.''
Republicans and Democrats carried out their clash as 10 members of ``Code Pink,'' an anti-war group, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during a protest in front of Arizona Sen. John McCain's office in a building across the street from the Capitol. ``They were absolutely compliant, peaceful,'' Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of the protesters.
McCain, a likely Republican presidential candidate, opposes the measure expressing disagreement with the increase in troops.
On the Net:
Text of Warner resolution: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.CON.RES.7:Saturday, February 3, 2007
Republicans Plan to Block Iraq Debate
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Friday that his party would unite to block Senate debate next week on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq unless the Democrats allowed votes on at least two Republican alternatives.
Mr. McConnell said even Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chief author of the bipartisan proposal, and other Republicans backing his plan had agreed to prevent the resolution from reaching the floor Monday if Democrats did not agree to that demand.
“We’re in a position to insist on a procedure for considering these matters that we think is fair to us,” said Mr. McConnell, who has been negotiating the framework of the debate with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “We can’t dictate the outcome necessarily, but we’re insistent upon a process that we are comfortable with.”
By CARL HULSE
Where Congress Can Draw the Line
Fallows@Large |
No war with Iran
.....
eciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change.
By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.
Why? Think of the three ways war between the United States and Iran might start.
One is the surprise, “surgical” air operation against Iranian nuclear facilities to take them out before they cause too much trouble. This option is beloved of the kind of tough-guy op-ed writers who earlier cheered on a war with Iraq. It is not at all beloved within the U.S. military. That is because military officials know what would happen roughly five minutes after the attacks were over: a short-term effort to make things really difficult for Americans in Iraq (where Iran obviously has huge leverage), in world energy markets, and everywhere else — plus a long-term, renewed effort to build Iran’s own bomb. More than two years ago, this exercise in the Atlantic indicated that it was simply too late for the United States (much less Israel) to deny Iran a nuclear option via surprise attack. Since then — well, it’s even later.
The second option would be land war. Please. Iran is nearly four times as large and has nearly three times as many people as Iraq. With what army will the U.S. attack and occupy such a state?
JamesFallows.com
James Fallows's Web site, with regularly updated dispatches, and information about his writings and appearances.
And the third would be some kind of drift into war, Cuban Missile Crisis-style. Threats and bombast on both sides, hair-trigger preparations, each side hurrying to strike because it thinks it’s too dangerous to wait for the other side to strike first. (Come to think of it, wasn’t this the essence of the “National Security Strategy” the Bush administration laid out in 2002, with its concept of “preventive” war?) For the likely consequences, see Option One.
Would it be better if Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons? Of course. But there are certain important goals that cannot realistically be attained by war. This is one of them. Analogy: it would be far better if North Korea did not build a full nuclear arsenal. The United States should do all it can to keep that from happening — but no sane person thinks that attacking North Korea, and provoking an instant assault on Seoul and neighboring cities, is the way to go.
If we could trust the Administration’s ability to judge America’s rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as beginning or inviting a war.
But no one can any longer trust the Administration to recognize and defend America’s rational self-interest — not when the President says he will carry out a policy even if opposed by everyone except his wife and dog, not when the Vice President refuses to concede any mistake or misjudgment in the handling of Iraq. According to the constitutional chain of command, those two men literally have the power to order a strike that would be disastrous for their nation. The Congress has no official way to prevent them from doing so — it is interesting, and alarming, to think that in practice the safety valve might be the professional military, trained to revere the chain of command but faced with what its members would recognize as ruinous instructions.
What the Congress can do is draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representatives. And it should do that now.
James Fallows
James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly and has worked for the magazine for more than 25 years. He has written for the magazine on a wide range of topics, including national security policy, American politics, the development and impact of technology, economic trends and patterns, and U.S. relations with the Middle East, Asia, and other parts of the world.
Fallows grew up in Redlands, California and then attended Harvard, where he was president of the newspaper The Crimson. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1970 and then studied economics at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He has been an editor of The Washington Monthly and of Texas Monthly, and from 1977 to 1979 he served as President Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter. His first book, National Defense, won the American Book Award in 1981; he has written seven others. He has worked as a software designer at Microsoft and from 1996 to 1998 he was the editor of U.S. News & World Report.
In the five years after the 9/11 attacks, Fallows was based in Washington and wrote a number of articles about the evolution of U.S. policies for dealing with terrorism and about the war in Iraq. One of these articles, "The Fifty First State?," won the National Magazine Award, and another, "Why Iraq has no Army," was a finalist. He also writes a monthly technology column for the magazine.
His books Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy (January 1996), and Free Flight: From Airline Hell to a New Age of Travel were excerpted in the February, 1996, and June, 2001, issues respectively. Looking at the Sun (1994) was excerpted in several installments in the early 1990s. His latest book, Blind into Baghdad: America's War in Iraq (2006) is based on several of his Atlantic articles.
.....
Recent articles by James Fallows
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Feingold Option: How to end the war
| January 29, 2007 |
| by Justin Raimondo |
| Sen. Russ Feingold may have withdrawn from the presidential sweepstakes, but he has entered the national debate over the Iraq war in a fairly dramatic fashion. Indeed, he has matched the president's escalation with one of his own by launching hearings, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, designed to point out the obvious – that Congress has the power to cut off the funding for the war. He plans to introduce legislation doing just that. Naturally, the piece reporting this on the new Politico Web site frames the matter in terms of the "conventional" wisdom, personified by the ultra-conventional Sen. Harry Reid, who opines, "Republicans 'would like this debate to be as whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for the troops. The logical conclusion is that a lot of things can happen. But right now, the most important thing is to tell the president that what he has done with the escalation is wrong. And that's what we are doing, bipartisanly.'" Democratic complicity in this futile and increasingly dangerous conflict is only underscored by the weakness of the party's ostensible opposition to it: they say they're against it, but on the other hand, apart from sponsoring nonbinding resolutions and posing for the cameras, they refuse to take meaningful action to end it. They can appeal to the president until they're blue in the face, but as Dick Cheney pointed out the other day, that won't stop this White House. What will stop them, of course, is if Congress cuts the purse strings: that's the one and only way to end this senseless policy, because not even Cheney and his pet neocons can wage war without dineros. Like a parent who cuts off an errant teenager's credit card after it's maxed out, Congress can discipline the warmakers and ensure we're out of Iraq by voting to make funds unavailable after a date certain. But Reid and his fellow enablers of Republican militarism are quaking in their boots at the prospect, supposedly on the grounds that this will leave the Democrats open to the charge that they've abandoned the troops in the field – without bullets, without body armor, and at the mercy of the enemy. That's a lot of malarkey, since the money appropriated for current military operations was voted on and disbursed a while back. Aside from that, however, if our delusional commander in chief leaves the troops in Iraq after the cutoff date, then the blame will fall on his shoulders, and no one else's. In any case, however, the real reason Democrats are allowing this president to play out his Napoleon complex using American troops as pawns has nothing to do with Reid's lame explanation, and is, instead, due in large part (albeit not exclusively) to what Wesley Clark points to as the decisive influence of "New York money." The presidential contest looms large on the political horizon, and the War Party's enormous financial resources are crucial to the Democrats' electoral success. To take one example: Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funded the Saban Center for Middle East Studies at Brookings – which played such a key role in buttressing liberal hawks in the run-up to war – is the single largest donor to Democratic politicians, disgorging a whopping $13 million to political candidates (although President Bush came in for his share of Saban's largess). Speaking of the Democratic Party, the Huffington Post – which has, not surprisingly, become a glorified bulletin board for the Democratic National Committee – is also the recipient of Saban's generosity, where he no doubt contributes more than merely his (and his wife's) bromidic posts. In 2002, Kenneth Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center, published his enormously influential book, The Threatening Storm, which retailed the neocons' dubious "intelligence" describing Saddam's WMD to Democratic hawks. Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their pathbreaking Harvard University study of the Israel lobby, describe the pro-war Saban as an "ardent Zionist." And the beat goes on: not content with atomizing the Iraqi nation, the War Party and their moneybags are now taking on Iran. As Matthew Yglesias avers: "Most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war." The Democrats, in short, have sold out for 20 pieces of silver. They have to be careful, however, to walk a fine line between passively enabling our war-crazed president and visibly aiding him. Yesterday, they were cowering before the Republican-neocon onslaught that labeled anyone who so much as questioned the war plan as a traitor and a terrorist collaborator, while today they strike an oppositional pose. One almost wishes they'd go back to cowering, what with all those "nonbinding" (i.e., utterly meaningless) antiwar resolutions floating around Congress. In the U.S. Senate, only Feingold has any balls, and he is pretty much an isolated figure, a kind of senatorial Dennis Kucinich. Yet there is hope… Sentiment to get us out of Iraq and prevent the next war is building, and the antiwar forces have the momentum. If a national movement can be mobilized around the narrow issue of the Feingold option, then the weak Reids of this world can be shown to be wrong, not only morally but strategically as well. For every moment the Democratic congressional majority continues to vote funds for this war – and future wars to come – they buy into a failed policy and make it their own. Once they begin to realize the political difficulties of such a tenuous position – and that day of enlightenment is not far off – they can be pushed (kicking and screaming) into taking their opposition to the war out of the symbolic realm and into the world of the actual. What you can do is contact your congressional representatives and let them know you support Sen. Feingold's pending resolution to cut off funding. There's just one way to end this war, and that is by simply ending it. Enough is enough: vote yes on the Feingold resolution! |
A deal in the desert for Sen. Reid?
By Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger
Times Staff Writers
January 28, 2007
BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.
In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.
Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.
If Reid were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on the $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000.
It is a potential violation of congressional ethics standards for a member to accept anything of value — including a real estate discount — from a person with interests before Congress.
In a statement, Reid's spokesman Jon Summers said that the transaction was not a gift and that the price was due to the property's history and the fact that only a partial interest was sold. Reid's action on the lubricants issue was unrelated to the sale and reflected the senator's interest in fairness for small businesses, Summers said.
Reid "has never taken any official action to provide personal financial benefit to me, and I would never have asked him to," Clair Haycock has told The Times. Haycock's son, John, who runs the petroleum-products distribution company with him, said in a recent e-mail that it was "absolutely wrong" to connect the land sale and Reid's lubricants legislation, which did not pass.
Legislative efforts
Records and interviews show that beginning in the mid-1990s, Reid tried several times to push legislation that would have protected lubricants distributors from abrupt cancellations by their suppliers. Though unsuccessful, the legislation sent a clear message to the oil firms that there was congressional interest in the matter, according to Sarah Dodge, then-legislative director for an industry group that worked on the bill.
By the time of the land sale, the Haycocks say, they had lost interest in the issue and were not aware that the legislation had been introduced.
Because an employee pension fund had owned the land Reid purchased, labor law experts contacted by The Times said, a below-market sale would raise additional questions. Pension fund trustees like Clair Haycock have a duty in most cases to sell assets for their market value, the experts said.
"I think this would have been considered a potentially serious issue" at the time, said Ian D. Lanoff, who led the Labor Department's pension division during the Carter administration and was provided basic details of the case — though not the identity of the lawmaker — by The Times.
"Theoretically it's a serious issue for the trustee who sold the property, though practically it may not be" because the pension plan is now closed and its obligations were met, Lanoff said.
John Haycock said his workers received all promised benefits from the Haycock Distributing Co. pension plan and were therefore unaffected by the land transaction. Federal records confirm this.
Reid's interest in the barren parcel dates back to the period of 1979 through 1982, when he and Clair Haycock bought the 160 acres. Haycock bought a three-eighths interest, equivalent to 60 acres, for $90,000 — $1,500 an acre. Reid, then a Nevada lawyer and political figure, bought the other five-eighths, the equivalent of 100 acres. They did not divide the parcel.
The property has sweeping mountain and mesa views and now abuts a housing development, which could make it attractive to developers. But there are some limitations. The land has a steep wash, or desert streambed, and the adjacent land has a gravel pit.
In early 1987, Haycock turned over his interest in the land to the pension fund, for which he acts as trustee. The fund provided retirement benefits for about 80 employees, and under law, employers must contribute to such funds each year.
In the early 1990s, California investors bought the entire 160 acres from Reid and Haycock for a little over $1.34 million — around $8,400 an acre. The new owners obtained approval to develop a mobile home and recreational vehicle park. But a few years later they defaulted, and Reid and the pension fund were once again the land's joint owners.
Development slowed in the late 1990s, and Reid and the Haycocks say the property became a cash drain. In 1999, according to Reid's office, the senator began working without success with developer Craig Johnson on a plan for the property. At some point, Reid's office said, he offered to give the land to Johnson, who declined. Johnson has confirmed that offer. In a statement Reid's office provided, Johnson described the listless market and the property's challenges.
In 2001, Haycock Distributing Co. decided to convert its existing pension fund into a 401(k) retirement program. In liquidating its assets, the firm decided that the plan must quickly sell its share of the property.
Lawyers advised the Haycocks that the family could not buy it from the pension fund, so Clair Haycock approached Reid. At first, Reid said "he and his wife were not interested due to the property's past history," Haycock wrote in a letter to The Times.
"Eventually, he gave me $10,000 for my share," Clair Haycock wrote. "I was just happy to have been able to liquidate the property from my pension plan." Reid's office said the senator and his wife purchased it reluctantly. "Because it had minimal value to them, they were willing to pay only a minimal price," a Reid staffer wrote in response to questions.
How good a deal?
How good a deal did Reid get? Paying $166 an acre for Mohave County land is "a super deal," said the county assessor, Ron Nicholson. But the precise answer in this case, Nicholson said, is complicated by the fact that only a minority portion of a partnership was for sale; minority shares can be difficult to sell. Other experts who reviewed the transaction for The Times acknowledged the complexity of the deal but said the senator appeared to have acquired valuable property for a fraction of its value.
"The price strikes me as low," said professor Crocker H. Liu, McCord chair of real estate at Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business. "But I don't know what other considerations — valuable or otherwise — were part of this transaction. Usually when a purchase price is that low, there is other juice in the deal."
Calculating the precise amount of Reid's discount is difficult because of varying values assigned to the property around that time, including some by the senator himself. In his 2001 Senate financial disclosure, Reid valued his Bullhead City acreage at $5,000 to $10,000 an acre. When questioned about the filing several months ago, Reid's office said he might have overstated the value. A Reid spokesman said the senator was in the process of amending his ethics statements to more accurately describe the terms of the deal.
At least twice, Reid appealed to the Mohave County assessor to lower the land valuation and decrease his taxes, in 2002 presenting a 2001 appraisal that valued the land at $1,000 an acre. The assessor's office made a downward adjustment for 2003 but still places the value at about $1,748 an acre.
On a recent property tour, the assessor acknowledged that Reid's land had problems.
"There are topographical issues on this property," Nicholson said as he drove a county-owned four-wheel-drive vehicle through the tract. He pointed out the property's steep wash and another streambed.
An adjacent parcel with similar topography sold in April 2004 for $4,260 an acre.
Reid's spokesman said the senator had paid a fair price for the pension fund's minority interest.
"When a willing buyer pays a willing seller to buy an asset, that is a sale, not a gift," Summers said.
Real estate experts say that minority interests in partnerships are often sold at a discount, sometimes of 20% or more. But they say that such discounts do not necessarily apply in a case like Reid's where he is the majority owner and gains 100% control by the purchase.
"We were happy to get out of the deal as we did," John Haycock said, adding: "Would we have liked to make more money on the Bullhead City land? Of course."
Reid's office produced statements from three Haycock retirees who attested that they believed they had been well-served by the pension plan.
Since taking full control of the parcel in 2002, Reid has pushed for federal funding for a new bridge over the Colorado River a few miles from his property, a spending request The Times disclosed last November.
Reid said he secured funding for the bridge, which would connect fast-growing Bullhead City with the gambling town of Laughlin, Nev., because local residents wanted it. He said the bridge would not affect his property's value.
Losing business
Reid has long been known as a champion of Nevada interests, particularly gambling and mining. But he seemed an unlikely choice to advocate for the beleaguered lubricants industry when he took up the issue in 1994. He did not sit on the Energy Committee.
At that time, the Haycocks went to Reid for help, according to a former employee of the lubricants industry trade group, Petroleum Marketers Assn. of America, who was involved in the events. The employee asked that his name be withheld because his current job involves congressional contacts.
The Haycocks had lost business in 1994 when Mobil Oil Co. canceled the family's distributorship, costing the firm a lucrative contract with the Las Vegas-area General Motors dealers, which had to use Mobil products.
The family was "incensed that this had happened and there was nothing they could do about it," said the former trade group employee.
Reid mentions constituent
The Haycocks — who were considered industry leaders — say they do not recall discussing the matter with Reid. But the former trade group employee said the Haycocks convinced Reid to take action.
Reid "did it because John or Clair asked him to do it," said the former employee.
With the legislative session coming to a close, Reid brought the issue to the Senate floor on Oct. 5, 1994. He described a Nevada constituent whose "franchise agreement to sell lubricating oils to car dealers in Las Vegas was arbitrarily canceled with 30 days' notice," adding: "This seems grossly unfair."
A Washington lawyer who represented the Haycocks in their dispute with Mobil recalls that dealers turned to Reid after other avenues of redress had been exhausted.
"The Haycocks provided access to Sen. Reid," said Al Alfano, the attorney, who still represents distributor interests. However, Alfano said, Reid's efforts brought no relief to the Haycocks. Although the issue remains a concern for many distributors, he said, the Haycocks lost interest after the mid-1990s.
Nonetheless, Reid cited the same constituent example almost word-for-word in 2002, soon after the land sale, and again in 2003 when he introduced legislation, cosponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), to protect lubricants distributors.
John Haycock said Reid's actions provided no benefit to his company. "I am not aware of any action taken by the senator, relative to lubricants, that has had a financial benefit to our company," Haycock wrote. "At one point I believe Sen. Reid pushed for legislation … but that legislation was never passed and therefore could not have had any impact….
"To my best recollection, I didn't even know Sen. Reid had introduced the legislation," John Haycock said, referring to the legislation in 2002 and 2003.
Reid's spokesman said: "In any event, the Haycocks are Sen. Reid's constituents, and there is absolutely nothing improper about Sen. Reid working to advance good policy on matters of concern to Nevadans and businesses in Nevada."
chuck.neubauer@latimes.com
tom.hamburger@latimes.com
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Reid's land in the desert
A 160-acre plot in Bullhead City, Ariz., has been variously valued at $1,000 to $10,000 per acre since Harry Reid and longtime friend Clair Haycock bought it more than 20 years ago. But Sen. Reid effectively paid far less than that in 2002, when he purchased Haycock's three-eighths interest, the equivalent of 60 acres.
Per-acre valuations of the land over the years
Price Haycock paid in 1982 for his share: $1,500
Approximate price paid in 1990 by buyers who later defaulted: $8,400
Valuation by Reid in 2001 Senate ethics statements: $5,000 to $10,000
2001 private appraisal for Reid: $1,000
Valuation by Mohave County assessor in 2002: $2,144
Price Reid paid for Haycock's three-eighths share of the land in 2002: $166
---
Note: The current county valuation of the property, unchanged since 2003, averages $1,748 per acre. Reid's per-acre valuation on his latest Senate ethics statement is $3,125 to $6,250.
---
Sources: Los Angeles Times estimates based on U.S. Senate disclosure forms; Mohave County Recorder's Office; Mohave County assessor; private appraisal records
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Top Republican leads effort on second resolution criticizing Bush's Iraq plan
The resolution -- also sponsored by Armed Services Committee members Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska -- tones down some of the language used in a resolution introduced earlier by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, sources involved with crafting the resolution tell CNN.
Warner -- whose clout will likely influence several Republicans on the fence over Bush's Iraq plan -- has so far avoided saying whether he agrees or disagrees with the president's plan, but is said to have been working behind the scenes for some time to build support for a compromise.
A source familiar with a draft as of Friday said the word "escalation" in the first resolution -- a term coined by Democrats to describe the troop increase which Republicans consider too partisan -- has been replaced in the second resolution by "augmentation." The resolution will also express Warner's concern over sending troops into entrenched sectarian violence.
"The other resolution was a real thumb in the eye to the president, our goal is to make the same point but get 60-65 votes, not 51 or 52," said the source. It is unclear whether these senators will be able to find a colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee to introduce it there, or whether they will have to wait to try to offer it on the Senate floor.
Biden, the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate, has said he plans to consider changes to his resolution in the committee next week.