Bush's Meeting With A MurdererRobert DreyfussDecember 04, 2006Robert Dreyfuss is an Alexandria, Va.-based writer specializing in politics and national security issues. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005), a contributing editor at The Nation and a writer for Mother Jones, The American Prospect and Rolling Stone. He can be reached through his website, www.robertdreyfuss.com. President George W. Bush meets today with Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the turbaned leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite fundamentalist party that is strongly tied to Iran. In so doing, the president is meeting with someone who, perhaps more than anyone else in Iraq, is responsible for trying to destroy Iraqi national unity, prevent national reconciliation among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian mix, and push Iraq into civil war. Al-Hakim, who was virtually Fed-Ex’d into Iraq by the Pentagon in March 2003, was a mainstay of the Iraqi National Congress, led by neoconservative darling Ahmed Chalabi throughout the 1990s. And today al-Hakim controls the SCIRI militia, the Badr Brigade, the Iraqi interior ministry and many of Iraq’s feared death squads. Not to put too fine a point on it, Hakim is a mass murderer. What’s stunning about Bush’s encounter with al-Hakim is that it occurs precisely at the moment when critically important bridges are being built across Iraq’s Sunni-Shiite divide—bridges that al-Hakim is trying to blow up. During a stop in Amman, Jordan, on his way to the United States, al-Hakim point blank tried to torpedo the idea of an international conference that might bring together Iraq’s various factions. Such a conference was explicitly proposed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week, who offered to host it. A similar conference, or one like it, is likely to be part of the recommendations that will be issued on Wednesday by the Iraq Study Group, the panel co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton. But al-Hakim trashes the idea. “It is unreasonable or incorrect to discuss issues related to the Iraqi people at international conferences,” said the Shiite radical. “The proposal is unrealistic, incorrect and illegal.” (It is, of course, perfectly legal.) It is not the first time that al-Hakim has tried to undermine reconciliation efforts. During repeated attempts by the Arab League to organize a conference that would bring Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders together with representatives of the armed resistance in search of an accord, al-Hakim almost single-handedly destroyed the idea. And it is al-Hakim, whose SCIRI controls much of Iraq’s south, who is the driving force behind efforts to create a separatist Shiite-run state in Iraq’s south. Hakim’s wrecking-ball effort is taking place in the context of unprecedented efforts by leaders of Iraq’s factions to create what many Iraqi leaders are calling a “government of national salvation.” Such a government would topple and replace the ineffectual, clownish Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Supporters of the idea, who are getting ready to announce a National Salvation Front in Iraq, include rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, many of Iraq’s Sunni leaders in and out of government, representatives of the Iraqi resistance and perhaps even some important Kurdish leaders. Last week, when the feckless Maliki traveled to Jordan to meet Bush, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his 30 members of parliament to suspend their participation and pulled five cabinet ministers out of Maliki’s government. Sadr’s Mahdi Army, one of the most powerful of Iraq’s armed factions and one which has been involved in death squads and assassinations itself, controls large parts of east Baghdad and many areas of the south, and they have fiercely opposed Hakim’s SCIRI. According to Sadr, his political forces will not rejoin the government until the United States has announced a timetable for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Sadr is now reaching out to Sunni and Kurdish leaders to form an anti-occupation bloc that will represent the vast majority of Iraqi public opinion. Polls have shown that up to 80 percent of Sunni Arabs and 60 percent of Shiite Arabs want an immediate end to the occupation. Among those supporting the new National Salvation Front, along with Sadr, are Saleh Mutlaq, the Sunni leader of Iraq’s National Dialogue Front; Tariq al-Hashemi, a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party; former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and many others. According to the Iraqi newspaper Al-Arab Al-Yawm, Mutlaq described the front as a broad cross-section of Iraqis opposed to the U.S. occupation:
Mutlaq also said that seven leading Iraqi Shiite ayatollahs will support the new grouping. Even as the National Salvation Front takes shape, there is strong evidence that Sunni and Shiite clerics are reaching out to each other. Two weeks ago, Muqtada al-Sadr demanded that Sunni clerics issue a fatwa , or religious order, condemning killings of Iraqi civilians by al-Qaida types and offering Sunni help to rebuild the domed mosque in Samarra that was destroyed in a bombing in February. It was that bombing that touched over the most severe phase of Iraq’s civil war, setting of a wave of reprisal killings among Shiites and Sunnis. Since Sadr’s call, several leading Sunni clerics have done as Sadr asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, including top Sunni religious leaders in Basra, Nasariyah, Amarah and Samaweh. All four were associated with the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), the leading Sunni religious group in Iraq, which has close ties to the Sunni insurgency. Not only that, but Harith al-Dhari, the leader of the AMS, issued a blunt condemnation of al-Qaida:
Two weeks ago, the Iraqi interior ministry, which is heavily controlled by Hakim’s SCIRI, issued an arrest warrant for al-Dhari, accusing him of maintaining ties to “terrorists.” This sort of inter-communal reconciliation is precisely what Iraq needs. Furthermore, to build it will require that Iraqis come together on the one issue about which most of them agree: ending the U.S. occupation. There is, without doubt, a majority of Iraq’s parliament opposed to the occupation. To create a replacement government of anti-U.S. Iraqis, who would then demand that the United States leave Iraq, would be a difficult task at best, because of the very presence of 150,000 U.S. troops and America’s overbearing ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. Furthermore, it is a fragile effort: a major assassination or targeted violence could shatter it before it even gets off the ground. Still, it is perhaps Iraq’s last, best hope for ending its civil war and starting to recreate a functioning state. Against this, there is talk inside the Bush administration, of “picking a winner,” of choosing sides in Iraq’s civil war—which, of course, means backing the Shiites. Such a notion is a nonstarter, if for no other reason than the question: Which Shiites? For the Bush administration, it could only mean SCIRI, Hakim’s band of thugs and assassins. If so, it would be the last, ugly mistake for President Bush’s merry band of incompetents, bunglers and war criminals. The release of the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq on Wednesday will signal the end of the Bush administration’s neoconservative-driven war policy, and the beginning of a new, realist-dominated consensus that America’s foreign policy establishment hopes will restore some of the U.S. prestige and influence that has been eviscerated by Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It is too much, perhaps, to expect from the Bush administration, but here’s an idea. Instead of trying to court Hakim and SCIRI to support a continued U.S. occupation of Iraq, the White House ought to acknowledge and heed the growing body of opinion in Iraq that wants the United States out, fast. |
Monday, December 4, 2006
Murderer's Meeting With A Murderer
Anti-war activist wins reins of Liberal party in Canada convention
BY BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:12/02/2006 08:25:44 PM PST
MONTREAL - A former environment minister who criticized the prime minister for "blindly" committing forces to Afghanistan for years won leadership of Canada's Liberal Party on Saturday.
Stephane Dion scored a surprise defeat of front-runner Michael Ignatieff, a scholar and human rights expert. Dion, environment minister under former Prime Minister Paul Martin and a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions, came into the race in fourth place out of eight candidates.
"The most exciting race in the history of our party is over; let's get ready for the election," Dion, 51, told the party convention moments after winning more than half the votes of the 5,000 delegates.
Dion has attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for "blindly" committing Canadian Forces to Afghanistan until 2009. Some 2,300 Canadian troops are helping other NATO forces fight the Taliban in the south.
"Canada has a prime minister who thinks that the United States is not only our ally, but also our model," Dion said in his speech Friday night.
Ignatieff's opponents cited his early support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a highly unpopular war among Canadians. He initially argued the war was in the best interests of international security, but has since said President George W. Bush has made mistakes.
Ignatieff also supported Canada's role in Afghanistan.
Harper's Conservatives beat the Liberals in elections in January, unseating them after nearly 13 years in power. The stunning defeat left the party flailing, and delegates are now looking to the person who can rebuild the party and take back the House of Commons in the next elections, expected in 2007.
Ignatieff, 59, had only returned to Canada last year, leaving his position as director of Harvard's Carr Center of Human Rights Policy to win his first seat in Parliament and stake his claim to the leadership position.
He called on all Liberals in the convention hall to unanimously support Dion.
"This is a day in which every Liberal in this room can feel deeply proud of the party we love," he said. "We have chosen a great leader. We have chosen a principled man, a man with vision, a man with courage."
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:12/02/2006 08:25:44 PM PST
MONTREAL - A former environment minister who criticized the prime minister for "blindly" committing forces to Afghanistan for years won leadership of Canada's Liberal Party on Saturday.
Stephane Dion scored a surprise defeat of front-runner Michael Ignatieff, a scholar and human rights expert. Dion, environment minister under former Prime Minister Paul Martin and a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions, came into the race in fourth place out of eight candidates.
"The most exciting race in the history of our party is over; let's get ready for the election," Dion, 51, told the party convention moments after winning more than half the votes of the 5,000 delegates.
Dion has attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for "blindly" committing Canadian Forces to Afghanistan until 2009. Some 2,300 Canadian troops are helping other NATO forces fight the Taliban in the south.
"Canada has a prime minister who thinks that the United States is not only our ally, but also our model," Dion said in his speech Friday night.
Ignatieff's opponents cited his early support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a highly unpopular war among Canadians. He initially argued the war was in the best interests of international security, but has since said President George W. Bush has made mistakes.
Ignatieff also supported Canada's role in Afghanistan.
Harper's Conservatives beat the Liberals in elections in January, unseating them after nearly 13 years in power. The stunning defeat left the party flailing, and delegates are now looking to the person who can rebuild the party and take back the House of Commons in the next elections, expected in 2007.
Ignatieff, 59, had only returned to Canada last year, leaving his position as director of Harvard's Carr Center of Human Rights Policy to win his first seat in Parliament and stake his claim to the leadership position.
He called on all Liberals in the convention hall to unanimously support Dion.
"This is a day in which every Liberal in this room can feel deeply proud of the party we love," he said. "We have chosen a great leader. We have chosen a principled man, a man with vision, a man with courage."
Iraq: Sen. Graham: Putin a '1-man dictatorship'
Graham: Putin a '1-man dictatorship'
Sun Dec 3, 11:14 AM ET
Russia under President Vladimir Putin is a "one-man dictatorship" and he should do more to help the U.S. confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said Sunday.
Graham joined Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., in urging the Bush administration to stand up to Putin. Their views reflect U.S. concerns over democratic backsliding by the Kremlin and the increasingly assertive steps by energy-rich Russia to counter American influence.
Graham cited President Bush's statement in 2001 that he got a sense of Putin's soul during the leaders' first meeting. "I think Bush misread his soul. I think this guy is taking Russia backward," Graham said.
"He's a problem, not a solution, to most of the world's problems. He could help us with Iran if he chose to. He is becoming basically a one-man dictatorship in Russia. And we need to be tough with him."
When asked about the death of an ex-KGB spy poisoned in Britain, Biden said he did not know if Putin was involved, "but our relations with Russia have to get straightened out to begin with."
"Russia is moving more and more toward an oligarchy here," Biden said. "We have basically been giving him a bye."
Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would consider "laying down markers about whether or not, as (Putin) continues to consolidate power within that economy and in that country ... he warrants continued membership" in the Group of Eight leading industrial nations.
The lawmakers spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
Sun Dec 3, 11:14 AM ET
Russia under President Vladimir Putin is a "one-man dictatorship" and he should do more to help the U.S. confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said Sunday.
Graham joined Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., in urging the Bush administration to stand up to Putin. Their views reflect U.S. concerns over democratic backsliding by the Kremlin and the increasingly assertive steps by energy-rich Russia to counter American influence.
Graham cited President Bush's statement in 2001 that he got a sense of Putin's soul during the leaders' first meeting. "I think Bush misread his soul. I think this guy is taking Russia backward," Graham said.
"He's a problem, not a solution, to most of the world's problems. He could help us with Iran if he chose to. He is becoming basically a one-man dictatorship in Russia. And we need to be tough with him."
When asked about the death of an ex-KGB spy poisoned in Britain, Biden said he did not know if Putin was involved, "but our relations with Russia have to get straightened out to begin with."
"Russia is moving more and more toward an oligarchy here," Biden said. "We have basically been giving him a bye."
Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would consider "laying down markers about whether or not, as (Putin) continues to consolidate power within that economy and in that country ... he warrants continued membership" in the Group of Eight leading industrial nations.
The lawmakers spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
The Road Less Traveled
December 3, 200
By Paul William Roberts
On Saturday, December 02, the Washington Post wrote:
"The emerging plan by the Iraq Study Group tries to find a middle road between President Bush's adamant refusal to leave Iraq until the job is done and Democratic demands to pull out U.S. troops. But in achieving unanimity among its Republican and Democratic members, the commission has outlined a strategy with its own political and military risks."
The reason this road is less traveled is that it just doesn’t exist.
One expected more from James Baker and his expensive commission, but perhaps we will yet have cause to thank him. For the uselessness of the ISG underscores a deeper uselessness in American politics generally when it comes foreign policies in which the public (read "the media") have developed a level of interest that already has, and will continue to cost votes. In managing to arrive at a "plan" upon which all its members could agree, the ISG has merely wasted paper – not to mention taxpayers’ money (a commodity more disposable than toilet paper in Washington). Like so much the long-suffering taxpayer finds himself and herself funding these days, this bi-partisan circle jerk can satisfy only the overpaid and bloated egos participating in the couple of long lunches that were surely all it took to assess the facts and then devise a course of action ignoring them. To the cash whores and corporate crooks whose fingers are always in the till and whose snouts rarely leave the Beltway trough, of course, this latest wasteful disgrace is just another drop of fecal matter in a septic tank the size of the Pacific Ocean.
It ought, however, to signify to the world that the US Government is no longer capable of running its own affairs. If the police were sent into East LA to arrest a few gang members yet succeeded only in sparking a full-scale three-way war which had entirely destroyed that part of town and was beginning to spill over into Beverly Hills, it is a good bet that after three years the mayor, or someone, would be able to conclude that the police had screwed up and should be replaced by some other force able to gain control over the situation. To expect common sense, let alone logic from politicians is, alas, more foolish than expecting compassion from sharks in a feeding frenzy. One wonders what it was that the Iraq Study Group studied, because it surely could not have been Iraq.
The truth that Iraq’s current state of appalling violence and hellish chaos is entirely the fault and responsibility of the US cannot be overstated. Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in early 2003, Washington has been as responsible for Iraq as it is for Louisiana or California. If 33 percent of Iraqi children now suffer from malnutrition, Washington is at fault. If 20 percent of Iraqis do not have access to potable water, Washington is at fault. If most of Baghdad can only rely on 8-12 hours of electricity per day, Washington is at fault. If the majority of Iraq’s schools and colleges have closed down because it is too dangerous for students to attend them, Washington is at fault. If 85 percent of Iraqis have been unemployed since the invasion began, Washington is at fault. If 1000 Iraqis die each week in the civil war that dare not speak its name, Washington is at fault. This list could be extended indefinitely, and it would all be Washington’s fault.
Is this being unfair to the Bush administration or America? Am I merely – God forbid! – another anti-American bigot? No is the answer on both counts. I am simply stating facts of international law.
The Geneva Conventions – no matter what the war criminal Donald Rumsfeld thinks of them – govern all aspects of the behavior of modern nations engaged in war, and they state unequivocally that the invading army’s government assumes complete responsibility for the invaded country from the moment its incumbent regime collapses and thereafter, until a new regime is able to govern. Whether you regard the Iraqi government as legitimate and independent, or a quisling, no one disputes its inability to govern. Without raising the issue of changes made illegally by America to various aspects of Iraqi law relating to elections, the current regime in Baghdad cannot conduct even the most rudimentary form of governmental obligation, and indeed only remains in place through US support (read "troops"). Thus, legally, Washington is still the ultimate authority, the place where the buck stops.
When I left Baghdad three years ago, it seemed as if the anarchy and violence could get no worse. Since then, however, it has done nothing but worsen. My Iraqi friends still living there are now, for the first time, requesting their names not be cited in any quotation I may use from blogs or e-mails. For the first time, also, they are asking for help. They are truly scared. Up to this point, there were worrying moments, tragic incidents, frightening episodes, but I do not recall any of them admitting fear. These are not Westerners, who drop in and out of Iraq, generally never leaving the Green Zone, usually moving anywhere in heavily armed convoys, leaving when their nerves get too frayed. These are the people who do most of the real reporting for the Westerners, and do it mainly without recognition, for a fraction of what foreign correspondents earn, and without body armor, let alone the US Army to protect them. Every time they leave their homes – which are not of course in the Green Zone – there is a reasonable chance they will not return. A trip to the market, a visit to the mosque, any activity, every day has been potentially lethal for the last 40 months. They have all lost family and loved ones. They have all seen dozens of people killed right before their eyes, shot, blown up, crushed by armored vehicles, burned alive. Most have lost everything they ever had, except loved ones – and some have even lost those. They have all learned to fear everyone — Americans, Sunnis, Shia, neighbors, and often friends too. They have watched as the city they all loved fiercely disintegrated into stinking rat-infested rubble and they came to realize that a city is in fact its people not its buildings. Throughout all this, often without reason, they hoped. They hoped the future would be better. They hoped they would one day resume their lives. They hoped the nightmare would end.
For these people were once scholars, engineers, systems analysts, lovers, mothers or fathers. These people once had lives. Now they are "Iraqis", another term for the denizens of hell, the most wretched of the wretched. But for the first time in three years I do not hear hope any more. Those who dismissed the possibility of civil war by pointing out how many Sunnis were married to Shia – "I am going to wage war on my wife?" – are now telling me that Shia and Sunni clergy are declaring such marriages annulled, invalid, reprehensible, and families, or friends, or tribes are forcibly separating couples.
They all seem to feel the Apocalypse is coming, or rather will finally arrive quite soon. "What you have seen so far will be nothing in comparison," said one friend. "The Tigris will become a river of blood." Another told me Shia mobs had already been reported killing Sunni babies, swinging them by the ankles and dashing their skulls against walls. "They are animals," he said. "Once they smell blood they lose their minds." This was always the Sunni view of Iraqi Shia, whose pilgrimage to Karbala – long banned under Saddam – with its gory and downright disturbing orgy of self-mutilation, and its scenes of hysteria and mass-hypnosis around the tomb of Hussein, had so profoundly horrified them as they watched it live on television in 2003. "They are crazy…they are animals…" – these were and are common remarks. Few ever wondered if the Shia were like this because they had been treated like animals for so long under the Sunni oppression. It is now pointless to bring up such ancient history. No matter how they behaved to each other, recent grievances supersede everything. It is far too late for apologies. The Four Horsemen, and their fifteen million foot soldiers, are on the move. It is no coincidence that the only Iraqis I know in Iraq are Sunni or Christians. They were the artistic and academic elites, and every other elite. Now they are scared, they are pleading for help. Just reading their recent e-mails scares me.
The truly frightening thing is that the United States is supposed to be in charge of this particular moronic inferno, and, as we should have noticed by now, the convocation of thieves, clowns and dunces in Washington can barely control their own bowel movements, and couldn’t even respond adequately to a flood in New Orleans, so they can no more fulfill US responsibilities in Iraq than they could bale out the Atlantic with a sieve.
I have for some time been trying to interest governments and organizations in the plight of Iraq’s Christian community. You would think we would be more aware of this million-strong minority, wouldn’t you? If the Sunnis don’t have much resembling a future worth being alive in, Iraqi Christians have less than that. Rightly, they felt until recently that their claim on Iraqi turf was secure, dating back 800 years earlier than any Islamic claim. But they also remember the far greater antiquity of Baghdad’s once huge Jewish community, which today numbers about zero. Saddam celebrated his ascent to power by decorating Firdos Square with Jews hanging from piano wire – and made sure the corpses were left there for many malodorous weeks too. Long enough for the Chosen People to realize they’d been chosen again. As far as I know, none thought it worthwhile to point out for Saddam that the Jewish community dated back at least 2,500 years, nor that everyone’s patriarch, Abraham, was Iraqi, from Ur. Most moved West to the Promised Land.
I used to imagine that American Jews, and possibly even Christians, would have sentimental reasons to safeguard sites like Babylon and Ur. US tank treads and souvenir-hunting marines have obliterated the former; a couple of crunchy battles took care of the latter. The Walt Disney people will have to give Iraq back a few heritage sites for the tourists one day. Auschwitz doesn’t get that many visitors, though, so no one should expect an invasion even if, or when Mesopotamia is fit to receive visitors with passports and visas again.
While Jews are exceptionally good about helping other Jews in trouble, Christians don’t even seem to grasp the concept involved. I’m not sure why, but I will spare the specific Christian subdivisions I approached in Canada the embarrassment of naming them. After explaining to the bureaucrats of Jesus that Iraq’s Christians will almost certainly be slaughtered – indeed, are being slaughtered, as we speak – and that all churches and many governments need to be lobbied immediately to participate in a mass-evacuation, I found myself faced with, no, not exactly a clamoring for more details, facts, specifics. In fact, the two largest bodies had but one question – the same one: what made me think Iraqi Christians were needier than those in Rwanda?
I imagine it has been through such cunning masterpieces of sophistry as this that Christians have managed to get through two thousand years without being especially Christian in their deeds. They ought to be further shamed by finding out that the most enthusiastic response to my plea came from, no, not the Mormons, nor the Scientologists, but from CSIS, the kinder, gentler Canadian answer to the CIA. With CSIS, too, I felt I could cite more practical issues. Such as the fact that Iraq’s Christians are mainly all highly educated upper middle class professionals — an Immigration Minister’s wet dream, in fact. It would scarcely be a hardship at all for Canada to take in all million of them. They would be helping the rest of us bear the burden of the planet’s highest taxation in no time, and from the higher income level. The country would actually be better off, but we could still pretend to other nations to have made a superhuman sacrifice. We could probably milk the guilty for several billion to help us "resettle" our refugees too. I thought the scheme had much to be said for it — not least the saving of a million lives. It was even child’s play ensuring no Islamist psycho-bombers stowed away among the Christians: they all speak Athurian, the ancient Aramaic-rooted tongue that is still used for their liturgy. No Muslim speaks Athurian. Besides, Iraqi Christians can spot a Muslim at a thousand paces.
But, although it is one government body that actually isn’t a waste of tax-dollars, CSIS still has to deal with a Himalayan range of bureaucracies all dedicated to the fine art of doing nothing expensively, and all the good will on earth would barely hollow out a cave let alone undermine these. The Grand Evacuation is presumably stuffed beneath a foothill of turpitude somewhere by now.
And my friends in Baghdad — Sunni and Christian — are scared and asking for help, because the blood-dimmed tide is rising around them, and they know the killing will be cruel, long and on a scale not seen since the Nazi death camps.
We can see plainly that the US Government is incapable of repairing the damage for which it is entirely responsible. Assigning blame will not help those in desperate need of help, either. We know our own governments are similarly useless, too, besides being habitually unused to carrying out any wishes of the people they do not even like to think of themselves as serving. And we know, or ought to know, that such a situation is deeply, gravely wrong. We, as representatives of the world’s people, must either take this current crisis in hand or sit back and watch no one help as Iraq turns into a whirlpool of blood that will leave the desert orange for centuries to come, and pronounce judgment over our selfish inaction as we too face the hour of reckoning, when every soul knows precisely what it has done and what it has left undone.
I suggest that all those who have lost faith in governments, over this and every other issue in which their uselessness has been the only principal successfully put forth and firmly adhered to, demand immediate action to halt the bloodshed in Iraq and evacuate Iraqi Christians wishing to leave. If our demands are ignored, we must in all conscience cease paying taxes to these imposters who have usurped the position of public servants and refused to serve the public. It would be morally wrong to continue financing such imposters, thus we should cease immediately. If millions could be persuaded to follow the dictates of conscience in such a manner, throwing us all in jail would be impossible. Taking back our countries and our world would also become a very real possibility. That is all it would take, my friends. Who among us has the courage to fling the first stone?
By Paul William Roberts
On Saturday, December 02, the Washington Post wrote:
"The emerging plan by the Iraq Study Group tries to find a middle road between President Bush's adamant refusal to leave Iraq until the job is done and Democratic demands to pull out U.S. troops. But in achieving unanimity among its Republican and Democratic members, the commission has outlined a strategy with its own political and military risks."
The reason this road is less traveled is that it just doesn’t exist.
One expected more from James Baker and his expensive commission, but perhaps we will yet have cause to thank him. For the uselessness of the ISG underscores a deeper uselessness in American politics generally when it comes foreign policies in which the public (read "the media") have developed a level of interest that already has, and will continue to cost votes. In managing to arrive at a "plan" upon which all its members could agree, the ISG has merely wasted paper – not to mention taxpayers’ money (a commodity more disposable than toilet paper in Washington). Like so much the long-suffering taxpayer finds himself and herself funding these days, this bi-partisan circle jerk can satisfy only the overpaid and bloated egos participating in the couple of long lunches that were surely all it took to assess the facts and then devise a course of action ignoring them. To the cash whores and corporate crooks whose fingers are always in the till and whose snouts rarely leave the Beltway trough, of course, this latest wasteful disgrace is just another drop of fecal matter in a septic tank the size of the Pacific Ocean.
It ought, however, to signify to the world that the US Government is no longer capable of running its own affairs. If the police were sent into East LA to arrest a few gang members yet succeeded only in sparking a full-scale three-way war which had entirely destroyed that part of town and was beginning to spill over into Beverly Hills, it is a good bet that after three years the mayor, or someone, would be able to conclude that the police had screwed up and should be replaced by some other force able to gain control over the situation. To expect common sense, let alone logic from politicians is, alas, more foolish than expecting compassion from sharks in a feeding frenzy. One wonders what it was that the Iraq Study Group studied, because it surely could not have been Iraq.
The truth that Iraq’s current state of appalling violence and hellish chaos is entirely the fault and responsibility of the US cannot be overstated. Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in early 2003, Washington has been as responsible for Iraq as it is for Louisiana or California. If 33 percent of Iraqi children now suffer from malnutrition, Washington is at fault. If 20 percent of Iraqis do not have access to potable water, Washington is at fault. If most of Baghdad can only rely on 8-12 hours of electricity per day, Washington is at fault. If the majority of Iraq’s schools and colleges have closed down because it is too dangerous for students to attend them, Washington is at fault. If 85 percent of Iraqis have been unemployed since the invasion began, Washington is at fault. If 1000 Iraqis die each week in the civil war that dare not speak its name, Washington is at fault. This list could be extended indefinitely, and it would all be Washington’s fault.
Is this being unfair to the Bush administration or America? Am I merely – God forbid! – another anti-American bigot? No is the answer on both counts. I am simply stating facts of international law.
The Geneva Conventions – no matter what the war criminal Donald Rumsfeld thinks of them – govern all aspects of the behavior of modern nations engaged in war, and they state unequivocally that the invading army’s government assumes complete responsibility for the invaded country from the moment its incumbent regime collapses and thereafter, until a new regime is able to govern. Whether you regard the Iraqi government as legitimate and independent, or a quisling, no one disputes its inability to govern. Without raising the issue of changes made illegally by America to various aspects of Iraqi law relating to elections, the current regime in Baghdad cannot conduct even the most rudimentary form of governmental obligation, and indeed only remains in place through US support (read "troops"). Thus, legally, Washington is still the ultimate authority, the place where the buck stops.
When I left Baghdad three years ago, it seemed as if the anarchy and violence could get no worse. Since then, however, it has done nothing but worsen. My Iraqi friends still living there are now, for the first time, requesting their names not be cited in any quotation I may use from blogs or e-mails. For the first time, also, they are asking for help. They are truly scared. Up to this point, there were worrying moments, tragic incidents, frightening episodes, but I do not recall any of them admitting fear. These are not Westerners, who drop in and out of Iraq, generally never leaving the Green Zone, usually moving anywhere in heavily armed convoys, leaving when their nerves get too frayed. These are the people who do most of the real reporting for the Westerners, and do it mainly without recognition, for a fraction of what foreign correspondents earn, and without body armor, let alone the US Army to protect them. Every time they leave their homes – which are not of course in the Green Zone – there is a reasonable chance they will not return. A trip to the market, a visit to the mosque, any activity, every day has been potentially lethal for the last 40 months. They have all lost family and loved ones. They have all seen dozens of people killed right before their eyes, shot, blown up, crushed by armored vehicles, burned alive. Most have lost everything they ever had, except loved ones – and some have even lost those. They have all learned to fear everyone — Americans, Sunnis, Shia, neighbors, and often friends too. They have watched as the city they all loved fiercely disintegrated into stinking rat-infested rubble and they came to realize that a city is in fact its people not its buildings. Throughout all this, often without reason, they hoped. They hoped the future would be better. They hoped they would one day resume their lives. They hoped the nightmare would end.
For these people were once scholars, engineers, systems analysts, lovers, mothers or fathers. These people once had lives. Now they are "Iraqis", another term for the denizens of hell, the most wretched of the wretched. But for the first time in three years I do not hear hope any more. Those who dismissed the possibility of civil war by pointing out how many Sunnis were married to Shia – "I am going to wage war on my wife?" – are now telling me that Shia and Sunni clergy are declaring such marriages annulled, invalid, reprehensible, and families, or friends, or tribes are forcibly separating couples.
They all seem to feel the Apocalypse is coming, or rather will finally arrive quite soon. "What you have seen so far will be nothing in comparison," said one friend. "The Tigris will become a river of blood." Another told me Shia mobs had already been reported killing Sunni babies, swinging them by the ankles and dashing their skulls against walls. "They are animals," he said. "Once they smell blood they lose their minds." This was always the Sunni view of Iraqi Shia, whose pilgrimage to Karbala – long banned under Saddam – with its gory and downright disturbing orgy of self-mutilation, and its scenes of hysteria and mass-hypnosis around the tomb of Hussein, had so profoundly horrified them as they watched it live on television in 2003. "They are crazy…they are animals…" – these were and are common remarks. Few ever wondered if the Shia were like this because they had been treated like animals for so long under the Sunni oppression. It is now pointless to bring up such ancient history. No matter how they behaved to each other, recent grievances supersede everything. It is far too late for apologies. The Four Horsemen, and their fifteen million foot soldiers, are on the move. It is no coincidence that the only Iraqis I know in Iraq are Sunni or Christians. They were the artistic and academic elites, and every other elite. Now they are scared, they are pleading for help. Just reading their recent e-mails scares me.
The truly frightening thing is that the United States is supposed to be in charge of this particular moronic inferno, and, as we should have noticed by now, the convocation of thieves, clowns and dunces in Washington can barely control their own bowel movements, and couldn’t even respond adequately to a flood in New Orleans, so they can no more fulfill US responsibilities in Iraq than they could bale out the Atlantic with a sieve.
I have for some time been trying to interest governments and organizations in the plight of Iraq’s Christian community. You would think we would be more aware of this million-strong minority, wouldn’t you? If the Sunnis don’t have much resembling a future worth being alive in, Iraqi Christians have less than that. Rightly, they felt until recently that their claim on Iraqi turf was secure, dating back 800 years earlier than any Islamic claim. But they also remember the far greater antiquity of Baghdad’s once huge Jewish community, which today numbers about zero. Saddam celebrated his ascent to power by decorating Firdos Square with Jews hanging from piano wire – and made sure the corpses were left there for many malodorous weeks too. Long enough for the Chosen People to realize they’d been chosen again. As far as I know, none thought it worthwhile to point out for Saddam that the Jewish community dated back at least 2,500 years, nor that everyone’s patriarch, Abraham, was Iraqi, from Ur. Most moved West to the Promised Land.
I used to imagine that American Jews, and possibly even Christians, would have sentimental reasons to safeguard sites like Babylon and Ur. US tank treads and souvenir-hunting marines have obliterated the former; a couple of crunchy battles took care of the latter. The Walt Disney people will have to give Iraq back a few heritage sites for the tourists one day. Auschwitz doesn’t get that many visitors, though, so no one should expect an invasion even if, or when Mesopotamia is fit to receive visitors with passports and visas again.
While Jews are exceptionally good about helping other Jews in trouble, Christians don’t even seem to grasp the concept involved. I’m not sure why, but I will spare the specific Christian subdivisions I approached in Canada the embarrassment of naming them. After explaining to the bureaucrats of Jesus that Iraq’s Christians will almost certainly be slaughtered – indeed, are being slaughtered, as we speak – and that all churches and many governments need to be lobbied immediately to participate in a mass-evacuation, I found myself faced with, no, not exactly a clamoring for more details, facts, specifics. In fact, the two largest bodies had but one question – the same one: what made me think Iraqi Christians were needier than those in Rwanda?
I imagine it has been through such cunning masterpieces of sophistry as this that Christians have managed to get through two thousand years without being especially Christian in their deeds. They ought to be further shamed by finding out that the most enthusiastic response to my plea came from, no, not the Mormons, nor the Scientologists, but from CSIS, the kinder, gentler Canadian answer to the CIA. With CSIS, too, I felt I could cite more practical issues. Such as the fact that Iraq’s Christians are mainly all highly educated upper middle class professionals — an Immigration Minister’s wet dream, in fact. It would scarcely be a hardship at all for Canada to take in all million of them. They would be helping the rest of us bear the burden of the planet’s highest taxation in no time, and from the higher income level. The country would actually be better off, but we could still pretend to other nations to have made a superhuman sacrifice. We could probably milk the guilty for several billion to help us "resettle" our refugees too. I thought the scheme had much to be said for it — not least the saving of a million lives. It was even child’s play ensuring no Islamist psycho-bombers stowed away among the Christians: they all speak Athurian, the ancient Aramaic-rooted tongue that is still used for their liturgy. No Muslim speaks Athurian. Besides, Iraqi Christians can spot a Muslim at a thousand paces.
But, although it is one government body that actually isn’t a waste of tax-dollars, CSIS still has to deal with a Himalayan range of bureaucracies all dedicated to the fine art of doing nothing expensively, and all the good will on earth would barely hollow out a cave let alone undermine these. The Grand Evacuation is presumably stuffed beneath a foothill of turpitude somewhere by now.
And my friends in Baghdad — Sunni and Christian — are scared and asking for help, because the blood-dimmed tide is rising around them, and they know the killing will be cruel, long and on a scale not seen since the Nazi death camps.
We can see plainly that the US Government is incapable of repairing the damage for which it is entirely responsible. Assigning blame will not help those in desperate need of help, either. We know our own governments are similarly useless, too, besides being habitually unused to carrying out any wishes of the people they do not even like to think of themselves as serving. And we know, or ought to know, that such a situation is deeply, gravely wrong. We, as representatives of the world’s people, must either take this current crisis in hand or sit back and watch no one help as Iraq turns into a whirlpool of blood that will leave the desert orange for centuries to come, and pronounce judgment over our selfish inaction as we too face the hour of reckoning, when every soul knows precisely what it has done and what it has left undone.
I suggest that all those who have lost faith in governments, over this and every other issue in which their uselessness has been the only principal successfully put forth and firmly adhered to, demand immediate action to halt the bloodshed in Iraq and evacuate Iraqi Christians wishing to leave. If our demands are ignored, we must in all conscience cease paying taxes to these imposters who have usurped the position of public servants and refused to serve the public. It would be morally wrong to continue financing such imposters, thus we should cease immediately. If millions could be persuaded to follow the dictates of conscience in such a manner, throwing us all in jail would be impossible. Taking back our countries and our world would also become a very real possibility. That is all it would take, my friends. Who among us has the courage to fling the first stone?
An urgent appeal from the prisoners in (Akrah prison) in the north of Iraq
December 3, 2006
استغاثة من سجن عقره.... سجناء عقره يصرخون بأي ذنب يسجنون؟
شبكة البصرة
An urgent appeal from the prisoners in (Akrah prison) in the north of Iraq within the authority of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), we spent almost two years in this prison, without any accusation, without any trial.
We are suffering all kind of inhuman treatment, torture and discrimination. Our families are also subject to the bad and inhuman treatment when they come to visit us.
We appeal to all those who could help us to interfere and use their pressure on the authorities in what so-called Kurdistan area to release us immediately.
من سجناء عقره في شمال العراق الواقعة ضمن نفوذ الحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني الذي يرأسه مسعود البرزاني نناشدكم ونناشد كل صاحب ضمير حي ان يلتفت الى معاناتنا ونستغيث بإخواننا في العراق وإخواننا المسلمين والعرب والى الشرفاء أصحاب الضمائر الحية في العالم والى المنضمات الإنسانية ونود ان نشرح لهم ماساتنا ومعاناتنا في هذا السجن الرهيب :
1- مضى على اعتقالنا في سجن عقره أكثر من سنه ونصف وبعضنا بلغ سنتين بحجة دعم الإرهاب ولم يثبت أثناء التحقيق ضدنا أية ادانه ومع ذلك لايوجد في الأفق ما يشير الى إطلاق سراحنا.
2- تعرضت وتتعرض عوائلنا الى الاهانه والتحقير والإذلال والاستهزاء في نقاط التفتيش والسيطرات عند حضورهم لمواجهتنا ولقد طلبنا نقلنا من سجن عقره الى سجن بادوش في الموصل لغرض التخفيف عن كاهل عوائلنا وعدم جعلهم ينتظرون ساعات طويلة تحت رحمة البيشمركه ولكننا لم نحصل على أي جواب.
3- قمنا بعملية إضراب في السجن مرتين لغرض إيصال صوتنا الى العالم وكانت المرة الأولى يوم الخميس 17/8/2006 والمرة الثانية يوم السبت 2/9/2006 وقد تعرضنا بعدها الى الضرب والتعذيب ونسمع يومياً كلمات الشتم والتوبيخ والعنصرية ويقال لنا بأننا لانعترف بحكومة العراق الحالية وانتم الآن في دولة أخرى غير دولة العراق هي دولة كردستان.
4- أصدرت حكومة مسعود عفواً عن السجناء وكان العفو يشمل سجناء الأكراد فقط وعددهم (120) معتقل ولم يشمل العفو أي من السجناء من القومية العربية.
5- نتعرض يومياً الى الضرب والأهانه والقتل وأحياناً يتعرض بعض المعتقلين الى الاعتداء الجنسي، وكنا قد تعرضنا في مراحل التحقيق في سجون الأمن التي تسمى بالكردية (الاسايش) ولاسيما في سجن الأمن العام (اسايش كشتي) حيث تعرضنا هناك الى أبشع صنوف التعذيب الجسدي والنفسي وهي تفوق في وحشيتها ما نسمعه عن ما حصل في سجن ابو غريب او في سجون الداخلية.
إننا نستغيث بإخواننا المسلمين في كل مكان لكي يوصلوا صوتنا ومعاناتنا الى العالم ونناشد الأحرار والشرفاء وكل من يقرأ رسالتنا هذه ان يسعى بجهده لتحريك قضيتنا وإطلاق سراحنا فلا توجد أي ادانه ضدنا وقد انتهت مراحل التحقيق ولم نحال الى المحاكم وليس هناك من أمل في إطلاق سراحنا... أغيثونا.... أغيثونا... أرحمونا يرحمكم الله... ونذكركم بقول المصطفى صلى الله علية وسلم (من فرج عن مسلم كربة فرج الله عنه كربة من كربات يوم القيامة).
أخوانكم المعقلين
في سجون شمال العراق عامة وسجن عقره خاصة
30/10/2006
شبكة البصرة
الجمعة 12 شوال 1427 / 3 تشرين الثاني 2006
يرجى الاشارة الى شبكة البصرة عند اعادة النشر او الاقتباس
استغاثة من سجن عقره.... سجناء عقره يصرخون بأي ذنب يسجنون؟
شبكة البصرة
An urgent appeal from the prisoners in (Akrah prison) in the north of Iraq within the authority of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), we spent almost two years in this prison, without any accusation, without any trial.
We are suffering all kind of inhuman treatment, torture and discrimination. Our families are also subject to the bad and inhuman treatment when they come to visit us.
We appeal to all those who could help us to interfere and use their pressure on the authorities in what so-called Kurdistan area to release us immediately.
من سجناء عقره في شمال العراق الواقعة ضمن نفوذ الحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني الذي يرأسه مسعود البرزاني نناشدكم ونناشد كل صاحب ضمير حي ان يلتفت الى معاناتنا ونستغيث بإخواننا في العراق وإخواننا المسلمين والعرب والى الشرفاء أصحاب الضمائر الحية في العالم والى المنضمات الإنسانية ونود ان نشرح لهم ماساتنا ومعاناتنا في هذا السجن الرهيب :
1- مضى على اعتقالنا في سجن عقره أكثر من سنه ونصف وبعضنا بلغ سنتين بحجة دعم الإرهاب ولم يثبت أثناء التحقيق ضدنا أية ادانه ومع ذلك لايوجد في الأفق ما يشير الى إطلاق سراحنا.
2- تعرضت وتتعرض عوائلنا الى الاهانه والتحقير والإذلال والاستهزاء في نقاط التفتيش والسيطرات عند حضورهم لمواجهتنا ولقد طلبنا نقلنا من سجن عقره الى سجن بادوش في الموصل لغرض التخفيف عن كاهل عوائلنا وعدم جعلهم ينتظرون ساعات طويلة تحت رحمة البيشمركه ولكننا لم نحصل على أي جواب.
3- قمنا بعملية إضراب في السجن مرتين لغرض إيصال صوتنا الى العالم وكانت المرة الأولى يوم الخميس 17/8/2006 والمرة الثانية يوم السبت 2/9/2006 وقد تعرضنا بعدها الى الضرب والتعذيب ونسمع يومياً كلمات الشتم والتوبيخ والعنصرية ويقال لنا بأننا لانعترف بحكومة العراق الحالية وانتم الآن في دولة أخرى غير دولة العراق هي دولة كردستان.
4- أصدرت حكومة مسعود عفواً عن السجناء وكان العفو يشمل سجناء الأكراد فقط وعددهم (120) معتقل ولم يشمل العفو أي من السجناء من القومية العربية.
5- نتعرض يومياً الى الضرب والأهانه والقتل وأحياناً يتعرض بعض المعتقلين الى الاعتداء الجنسي، وكنا قد تعرضنا في مراحل التحقيق في سجون الأمن التي تسمى بالكردية (الاسايش) ولاسيما في سجن الأمن العام (اسايش كشتي) حيث تعرضنا هناك الى أبشع صنوف التعذيب الجسدي والنفسي وهي تفوق في وحشيتها ما نسمعه عن ما حصل في سجن ابو غريب او في سجون الداخلية.
إننا نستغيث بإخواننا المسلمين في كل مكان لكي يوصلوا صوتنا ومعاناتنا الى العالم ونناشد الأحرار والشرفاء وكل من يقرأ رسالتنا هذه ان يسعى بجهده لتحريك قضيتنا وإطلاق سراحنا فلا توجد أي ادانه ضدنا وقد انتهت مراحل التحقيق ولم نحال الى المحاكم وليس هناك من أمل في إطلاق سراحنا... أغيثونا.... أغيثونا... أرحمونا يرحمكم الله... ونذكركم بقول المصطفى صلى الله علية وسلم (من فرج عن مسلم كربة فرج الله عنه كربة من كربات يوم القيامة).
أخوانكم المعقلين
في سجون شمال العراق عامة وسجن عقره خاصة
30/10/2006
شبكة البصرة
الجمعة 12 شوال 1427 / 3 تشرين الثاني 2006
يرجى الاشارة الى شبكة البصرة عند اعادة النشر او الاقتباس
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) wandering the halls of Senate office buildings in his jammies
Pajama Party ... or Not.
New Senate leader's shortened recesses could cut off Bush judicial nominees
December 3, 2006
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
Sen. Harry Reid, leading the Senate's new Democratic majority, is framing next year's schedule in a way that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to give recess appointments to nominees blocked for confirmation.
Reid's schedule limits Senate recesses to one week. Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days. That may kill any consideration of trying to seat federal appeals court judges whose nominations had been stalled even in the Republican-controlled Senate. The downside may be a rebellion by senators if their breaks are held to one week.
A footnote: Bush did not make his difficult course in the Senate any easier when he inexplicably failed to place a congratulatory phone call to Sen. Mitch McConnell on his election as Senate Republican leader. The president did call the new minority whip, Sen. Trent Lott. After McConnell revealed the presidential snub in an interview, Bush called him.
Barney's 'lapdog'?
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts is not content to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee but is pushing for moderate Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama as its ranking Republican member.
The committee's Democratic staff is pressing for Bachus over the more senior conservative Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana (with the selection made this coming week by the Republican Steering Committee) on grounds he would facilitate bipartisan cooperation with Frank. Baker's supporters claim Bachus would be Frank's ''lapdog'' on the important committee, which deals with corporate regulation.
According to the National Journal's ratings for the last Congress, Baker is the 17th most conservative House member while Bachus ranks 78th. Baker is more conservative than every member of the House GOP leadership (except for Rep. John Carter of Texas, the newly elected secretary of the Conference).
Baker is also measured to the right of all leaders of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
Keating for president?
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, in a recent lunch with veteran Republican political consultant Ed Rollins, explored the prospects of his making a run for president. Rollins replied that he should run only if he could raise a sufficient war chest.
Keating, the chief Washington-based lobbyist for the life insurance industry, considered a 2000 race for president with Rollins as his manager. He has made no decision for 2008. Rollins managed President Reagan's landslide re-election in 1984.
The rationale for Keating's presidential ambitions is the absence of a clear and viable right-of-center presidential candidate now that Sen. George Allen has been eliminated by his defeat for re-election in Virginia. Keating is a conservative and a prominent Catholic layman who at one time was a prospect to be George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.
Divided conservatives
While the conservative Republican Study Committee will have an increased percentage in the GOP's depleted House ranks, it is being divided in a battle for its leadership between reformers and appropriators.
Third-term Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a reformer opposing earmarks, was in line to be the next chairman. But he is being challenged by Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, a sixth-termer on the Appropriations Committee.
Tiahrt's candidacy riles reformers who want to make the study committee the base for controlling spending and growth of government. After the election, the committee's share of all House Republicans has climbed from 43 percent to as high as 54 percent. Hensarling's backers complain that Tiahrt's challenge dilutes the impact of conservatives.
Emily down
In an election marked by widespread Republican defeats, the group that supports female Democratic candidates who are pro-choice on abortion picked up just two of 19 Republican House seats it had targeted for defeat.
In those 19 districts, Emily's List spent $1.5 million in independent expenditures and made $921,000 in direct contributions. It funneled $241,357 to Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and $159,000 to state Atty. Gen Patricia Madrid in New Mexico. Duckworth and Madrid, both narrow losers, were among the highest-profile Dem challengers this year.
In Democratic House primaries, Emily's List lost four out of six competitive races.
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
Sen. Harry Reid, leading the Senate's new Democratic majority, is framing next year's schedule in a way that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to give recess appointments to nominees blocked for confirmation.
Reid's schedule limits Senate recesses to one week. Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days. That may kill any consideration of trying to seat federal appeals court judges whose nominations had been stalled even in the Republican-controlled Senate. The downside may be a rebellion by senators if their breaks are held to one week.
A footnote: Bush did not make his difficult course in the Senate any easier when he inexplicably failed to place a congratulatory phone call to Sen. Mitch McConnell on his election as Senate Republican leader. The president did call the new minority whip, Sen. Trent Lott. After McConnell revealed the presidential snub in an interview, Bush called him.
Barney's 'lapdog'?
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts is not content to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee but is pushing for moderate Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama as its ranking Republican member.
The committee's Democratic staff is pressing for Bachus over the more senior conservative Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana (with the selection made this coming week by the Republican Steering Committee) on grounds he would facilitate bipartisan cooperation with Frank. Baker's supporters claim Bachus would be Frank's ''lapdog'' on the important committee, which deals with corporate regulation.
According to the National Journal's ratings for the last Congress, Baker is the 17th most conservative House member while Bachus ranks 78th. Baker is more conservative than every member of the House GOP leadership (except for Rep. John Carter of Texas, the newly elected secretary of the Conference).
Baker is also measured to the right of all leaders of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
Keating for president?
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, in a recent lunch with veteran Republican political consultant Ed Rollins, explored the prospects of his making a run for president. Rollins replied that he should run only if he could raise a sufficient war chest.
Keating, the chief Washington-based lobbyist for the life insurance industry, considered a 2000 race for president with Rollins as his manager. He has made no decision for 2008. Rollins managed President Reagan's landslide re-election in 1984.
The rationale for Keating's presidential ambitions is the absence of a clear and viable right-of-center presidential candidate now that Sen. George Allen has been eliminated by his defeat for re-election in Virginia. Keating is a conservative and a prominent Catholic layman who at one time was a prospect to be George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.
Divided conservatives
While the conservative Republican Study Committee will have an increased percentage in the GOP's depleted House ranks, it is being divided in a battle for its leadership between reformers and appropriators.
Third-term Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a reformer opposing earmarks, was in line to be the next chairman. But he is being challenged by Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, a sixth-termer on the Appropriations Committee.
Tiahrt's candidacy riles reformers who want to make the study committee the base for controlling spending and growth of government. After the election, the committee's share of all House Republicans has climbed from 43 percent to as high as 54 percent. Hensarling's backers complain that Tiahrt's challenge dilutes the impact of conservatives.
Emily down
In an election marked by widespread Republican defeats, the group that supports female Democratic candidates who are pro-choice on abortion picked up just two of 19 Republican House seats it had targeted for defeat.
In those 19 districts, Emily's List spent $1.5 million in independent expenditures and made $921,000 in direct contributions. It funneled $241,357 to Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and $159,000 to state Atty. Gen Patricia Madrid in New Mexico. Duckworth and Madrid, both narrow losers, were among the highest-profile Dem challengers this year.
In Democratic House primaries, Emily's List lost four out of six competitive races.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)