We, the people, have had it too easy for too long.

Its about to get really rough.

Are we up to it?

Are we ready for what will follow?

Time to Take Action; Depending on Congress is Not Enough by Rob Kall http://www.opednews.com

Alcoholics living the 12 steps face the fact that there are things they can't change. We progressives must face the fact that there are things the Democratic congress WON'T change. We're going to have to do it some other way.

Our faith in America's resilience is certainly being tested and has been since Bush took office. The extreme actions, policies and strategies Bush has been taking-- abusing executive privilege, the signing statements, along with the support of the judges he appointed without senate confirmation suggest that faith in the constitution is not enough. We must fight to protect it, because the congress-- our elected officials are failing to do so.

That can start NOW. It can be a people/grassroots initiated process. YOU can start. Instead of writing about what's wrong with America TODAY, with all your heart, in all your articles, you can put a half or a third or quarter of your energy into writing about your visions of what the next phase of a free, just, democratic America looks like. You can write about what it looks like at a national, international or local level. You can write about the media, about elections, about the environment, about the workplace, about rights, about research... anything. Become a futurist for democracy and the constitution. Become a warrior for the future of peace and freedom. Forget about just depending upon our legislators. Ultimately, we may be able to persuade them, but if we don't do it first, now, and if we don't get tough and determined, strong and dedicated and courageous about it, like our children's futures depend upon it, IT won't happen.

Another reason the USA is in such deep doo doo, at such great risk of losing so much, is because the media we have depended upon to play an essential role in the protection of our democracy have failed us. They have, as they've morphed from mainstream media to megacorporation controlled lamestream media, betrayed the people and the nation who provide them with their license to operate on the airways.

It has become clear, since the November '06 elections and the resultant unable and unwilling to get anything done congress-- that it is not enough to just sit back and depend upon elected legislators to fix the problems, to fight the fights that must be fought.

We-- you and I and the people you and I recruit must take on the job.

WE must build the organizational structures.

WE must recruit the warriors who take on the corporations and the weak, election money blinded and impaired members of congress who are doing nothing or getting in the way of getting done what must be done to rescue America.

WE must reach out to other nations and the people in other nations to find help-- allies, funding, advisors who will help us take our fight against the breakdown of freedoms, the encroaching fascism that is growing in America.

I am not, at least not at this time, talking about violence, armed revolution or even breaking any laws. I AM talking about getting much tougher working within the law-- using all the tools that activists and revolutionaries throughout the world have already used. We do need to support the leaders we already do have who have been willing to engage in acts of civil disobedience for the sake of our freedoms. We need to build funds for bailing them out and defending them.

The challenge, when the fight is ramped up to the next level, is leaders will be at greater risk for being attacked and picked off-- probably by many-- the power holders on the right, the weak lefties, like the DLC, the Democrat supporters who don't get it that the Democrats are also part of the problem, as long as money plays as big a role as it does in elections.

We need to learn from people who have gone all the way to full revolution and beyond, to successful change in government. Again, I'm not advocating for revolution, but that we learn about all the tools and learn about what to do when your political group wins. Currently, if we on the left did "WIN" and take back America, we'd probably lose it, almost immediately, to the centrist lefties who watched we on the further left who did the heavy lifting. We'd lose it to them because we don't have well laid out, formulated and expressed plans for what to DO when we win. It is essential that if progressives are going to ever take back America-- from the right wingers- republican and democrat alike-- we must have a lot more intellectual, visionary infrastructure already built and in place-- leaders and thinkers who are envisioning what a Renaissance constitutional America will look like and how it will operate, what changes will be made-- beyond getting rid of the bad guys and revoking and reversing the worst of the rules they've put into place or suspended.

I must confess that I wrote this after writing a review of Giocondo Belli's autobiography. Read the review, then read her book.

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.

BTW, the book Rob's holding in his photo is "HISTORY OF THE REBELLION" volume 3. by Edward, Earl of Clarendon, published 1816, describing the rebellion among the Irish and Scots, around 1656. This was a religious war between the Church of England, Catholics and Presbyterians. The Earl, writing for the Queen, calls the Irish far worse than terrorists.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Cllinton, not liked, but a strong leader

June 11, 2007

Poll: Clinton stronger leader, Obama more likeable

Clinton has increased her lead over Obama in New Hampshire according to a new CNN/WMUR poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have lengthened her lead among likely New Hampshire primary voters after last week’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates, winning points for being strong, even if she’s not necessarily the most likeable, a poll said Monday.

The CNN/WMUR presidential primary poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, placed the senator from New York at the front of the pack, supported by 36 percent of likely voters versus 22 percent for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, her closest rival. (Read full poll results [PDF])

Since April, Clinton’s support has grown by 9 points — from 27 percent, the poll said. Obama’s position has grown by just 2 points — from 20 percent — in April.

Most of those increases appear to have come at the expense of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, whose support tumbled from 21 percent in April to his current 12 percent.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not said he is running, tied Edwards at 12 percent, up from 11 percent in April. And New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson garnered 10 percent, up from 4 percent in April. The rest of the field included Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, with 4 percent; Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, with 1 percent; and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, each of whom garnered less than 0.5 percent.

Clinton fell behind when it came to likeability. Asked which candidate is most likeable, likely voters cited Obama (40 percent) nearly three times as often as Clinton (14 percent). Clinton also trailed Edwards (20 percent) while Gore attracted 9 percent and Richardson 6 percent.

But the former first lady fared considerably better when likely voters were asked which candidate is the strongest leader. She led the pack, with 48 percent, followed distantly by Gore and Obama — each with 12 percent — and then Edwards, with 6 percent.

Asked which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in November’s general election, Clinton again came out on top, with 37 percent, more than double the 15 percent garnered by Obama and more than triple the 12 percent who cited Gore or the 10 percent who cited Edwards.

Since the April poll, Iraq gained in importance, with 57 percent citing it as the most important issue that will affect their vote in the primary, up from 39 percent.

Health care was cited by just 8 percent, down from 21 percent in April. The economy also attracted 8 percent, down from 11 percent in April.

New Hampshire holds the nation’s first primary, part of the process by which the Democratic and Republican parties select their candidate for the general elections, to be held in November 2008.

The telephone poll of 309 Granite State residents who say they will vote in the primary has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 5.5 points. It was carried out Wednesday through Sunday, after the June 3 debate among Democratic presidential candidates, which was sponsored by CNN, the New Hampshire Union-Leader and WMUR-TV.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

It's The Effing Media Again (Locking Out The Christian Left)

The Religious Left is Left Out by the Commercial Media
By Joshua Holland,
AlterNet
Posted on May 30, 2007,
Printed on May 31, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/52567/

People can attach a thousand different meanings to words like "faith" and "values," yet when it comes to religion and politics, we've been conditioned to understand that they have a narrow and decidedly right-wing tilt. When pundits speak the phrase -- often in reverent tones -- we know they're not talking about the pacifism valued by Quakers, the environmental stewardship valued by Wiccans or the act of caring for the hungry, poor and sick that's valued by almost all faiths.

So after the 2004 election, when exit polls found that more people identified "moral values" as their most important issue than any other, it led to endless hand-wringing among liberals and Democrats about how they could win back "values voters" and a thousand columns about how progressive America is largely a secular, even God-hating America and would therefore always be a marginal part of the body politic. The electorate, we were told, was divided between pro-choice, gay-tolerant "blue," and anti-choice, gay-bashing "red."

Later, post-election surveys showed that gay marriage and abortion had in fact had little or no effect on the independent vote, the vote in battleground states, or the vote in states with anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot.

It wasn't until an exit poll conducted by Zogby after last year's midterm elections found that the "moral issue" cited most by voters was the Iraq war that the particular piece of conventional wisdom was abandoned by many political junkies, but it persists today among too many reporters.

How did that happen? How is it possible that political reporters routinely and without irony refer to people who have no moral qualms about bombing another country as a matter of choice rather than necessity as "values voters"? How do those same people wear the "values" label even while supporting one of the last death penalties in the industrialized world? How is it that self-proclaimed "Men of God" can call for the assassination of foreign heads of state, blame the 9/11 attacks on Americans' promiscuity and lobby to keep vaccines against deadly cancers out of the hands of young women and still claim to represent the moral compass of spiritual America?

"Left Behind," a new study by the watchdog group Media Matters for America helps answer those questions. It found that "conservative religious figures dominate the media's coverage of religious issues, while religious progressives and representatives of mainline religious institutions, who regularly make statements on controversial issues, went relatively ignored."

The study's key findings tell the tale:
Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders
On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders

In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

As the report notes, "the decisions journalists make when deciding which voices to include in their stories have serious consequences." In the case of religion, the consequence is a dominant but largely misleading narrative about the role of religion in political life.

Even the broad label "evangelical" is used almost exclusively to describe religious conservatives, despite the fact that leading voices within the religious left -- people like Sojourners founder Jim Wallis -- are themselves evangelicals, as are a large number of (mostly liberal) African-American Christians:

… despite media depictions, evangelicals are a heterogeneous group with varying priorities: For example, in 2006 only 10 percent of evangelical Christians said abortion and gay marriage would be the most important factor in determining their vote. This heterogeneity of political views among religious Americans applies across varied religious denominations and traditions.

In choosing who speaks for faithful America, the media both embrace and create a misleading narrative of our religious culture. "Values," after all, are what motivates most of us in our political choices, but Americans know that when a pollster asks how important "values" are, the question is really about abortion, gay marriage and a handful of other issues that the leading lights of the religious right uses to fire up their followers.

The truth is that a majority of religious communities are either centrist or prrogressive. The Media Matters study cites a 2006 survey by the Center for American Values in Public Life that found that only 22 percent of Americans are "traditionalist" in their religious beliefs. Almost 9 in ten Americans say they are religious -- to one degree or another -- but a majority of them reject the kind of nationalistic and chauvinistic theism of those most frequently quoted about the subject in the mainstream press.

Which leads to a question: What would our media landscape look like if it were widely reported that only half as many voters say that abortion or gay marriage is "the most urgent moral crisis in American culture" than point the finger at "greed and materialism or poverty and economic justice"?

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Another Blank Check, No Compromise, Betrayal

The only Democrat who has been against this war from day one, has consistently spoken out against it and has never voted for any blank check for the war preznit is Albert Gore.

Run, Al, Run

The question is not whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid flinched in their negotiations with the Bush administration over the continuation of the Iraq occupation.

They did. Despite some happy talk about benchmarks that have been attached to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that is expected to be considered by Congress this week, the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq.

This "compromise" legislation is such an embarrassing example of what happens when raw politics overwhelms principle -- and political common sense -- that House Democrats have divided the $12O billion measure into two sections. That will allow Republicans and sold-out Democrats to vote for the president's Iraq funding, while anti-war Democrats and their handful of Republican allies can vote "no." Then both Democratic camps can vote separately for the second section -- including a federal minimum-wage increase and more than $8 billion in funding for domestic programs -- while Republicans oppose this section.

Presuming that both parts pass the House, they will then be sent to the Senate as a single bill for members of that chamber to accept or reject. The end result of this confusing set of legislative maneuvers will be twofold: Lots of House members will be able to avoid accountability for their votes, while Bush will get his blank check. Even Pelosi says she'll vote against the Iraq funding section of the House bill because it lacks "a goal or a timetable" for extracting U.S. troops from the conflict. But, no matter how she votes, Pelosi will have facilitated a process that gives the president more war funding than he had initially requested

But the real story now is not the refusal of the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to hold steady in the face of the president's cynical claim that refusing him a blank check to maintain his war through the end of his presidency somehow threatens U.S. troops. That has happened and no matter what games are played with voting procedures, the reality is that the Democratic leadership has failed to lead at the most critical juncture.

The question that remains to be answered is a frustrating but significant one: How many Democrats and responsible Republicans will refuse to accept this ugly political calculus?
What we know is that there will be opposition. MoveOn.org, which provided critical cover for the Democratic leadership during earlier fights on the supplemental and related matters, is now urging all Democrats to vote "no" on the war funding -- and it is threatening in-district ad campaigns against Democrats and Republicans who back the measure.

The most genuinely anti-war members will not need any encouragement to reject the deal.
Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has led the fight to get Congress to use the power of the purse to bring the troops home, immediately announced that he would not follow Reid into the abyss of surrender to a White House that is getting everything that it wants.

"Under the president's Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President's open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war," says Feingold. "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history."

Anticipating the cynical gamesmanship of the debate that will play out this week, the Wisconsin Democrat says, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq."

Feingold is, of course, right. But how many senators will join him in voting "no"? That question is especially significant for the four Senate Democrats who are seeking their party's presidential nomination: New York's Hillary Clinton, Illinois' Barack Obama, Delaware's Joe Biden and Connecticut's Chris Dodd. Dodd says he is "disappointed" by the abandonment of the timeline demand; if he presses the point as he did on another recent war-related vote, he could force the hands of the other candidates. If either Clinton or Obama do go ahead and vote for the legislation, and certainly if both of them do so, they will create a huge opening for former North Carolina John Edwards, who has staked out the clearest anti-war position of the front runners for the nomination. But this is about more than just Democratic presidential politics: A number of Senate Republicans who are up for reelection next year -- including Maine's Susan Collins, Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Oregon's Gordon Smith -- may well be casting the most important votes of their political careers.

Collins, Coleman and Smith have tried to straddle the war debate. If they vote to give George Bush another blank check, however, they will have removed any doubt regarding how serious they are about ending the war -- as will their colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

American Taxpayers Are The Purse Fillers.

Congress is not the only entity that can cut off war funding.

The Americans people, finaly, hold the purse strings, as they are the ones who fill the purse. STOP!

Democrats Pull Troop Deadline From Iraq Bill
By CARL HULSE


WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.

But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans would have to sign on to ensure the plan’s approval.

Ms. Pelosi made clear that if money for the war was going to be provided without a timeline for withdrawal, it would be without her personal support. “I would never vote for such a thing,” Ms. Pelosi said as she entered the office of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to put the final touches on the $120 billion proposal.

The Democrats’ decision to give way appeared likely to bring an end to a legislative battle that has raged since Feb. 5, when Mr. Bush first requested the additional war financing. Mr. Bush had insisted that the money not be bound by time constraints, and Democrats proved unable to override his veto of their initial, defiant vote in favor of a spending bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin on Oct. 1.

In backing down on Tuesday, the Democratic leaders accepted an outcome that had appeared increasingly likely for weeks, particularly as Democrats became concerned that their defiance could be portrayed as indifference to the troops. But the Democrats have pledged to renew their fight this summer by seeking to attach timetables to subsequent war financing measures.

As late as last week the Democrats were still pursuing timelines in their negotiations with the White House, and the decision on Tuesday by Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and other leaders to abandon them was not going over well with most antiwar lawmakers or with some activist groups that had argued that Democrats should seek to cut off money for the war.

“There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who was unsuccessful last week in his push for a withdrawal of combat troops by spring. “Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

Other Democrats said they had no choice. “It was a concession to reality,” said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, who said he intended to oppose the war spending portion of the bill.

In an effort to appease antiwar Democrats, the party’s leaders plan to allow two votes in the House. One would provide the war money, and seems likely to be opposed by large numbers of Democrats. The other, separated out to allow more Democrats to vote in favor, would include popular measures that are also part of the package, including a minimum wage increase and $17 billion in added domestic and military spending.

The bills would then be combined into one and sent to the Senate, with the idea of getting the measure to the president by the weekend.

At the White House, officials said they were waiting for the actual language of the proposal. “We’re hopeful that discussions on the emergency war supplemental for the troops are nearing conclusion,” said a spokeswoman, Dana Perino.

Four Senate Democrats running for president sided with Mr. Feingold last week, but some said Tuesday that they could not say how they would vote on the new proposal without reviewing it.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, indicated that he had reservations.

“I am disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end,” Mr. Dodd said.

Senior Democratic officials said the final bill would probably be stripped of other features that Mr. Bush had previously resisted, including readiness standards that would have prevented troops from being returned to Iraq within one year of serving there or without adequate training and equipment unless Mr. Bush signed a waiver determining it was necessary.

The compromise legislation is far from a total victory for the president. It requires that the Iraqi government show progress on improving security and forging political unity. Mr. Bush has resisted Congressional intervention in the conduct of the war, and the benchmarks and new reporting requirements, which had strong Republican support in the Senate, represent new accountability in the eyes of many lawmakers. “We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” Mr. Reid said. “But no one can say with any degree of veracity that we haven’t made great progress, and this bill is further proof of that.”

The measure would also force the White House and Congressional Republicans to accept significant new spending. Democrats say there is about $17 billion beyond the president’s initial request, with about $9 billion devoted to extra spending on military programs and health care, veterans’ health care and military base realignment. The remaining $8 billion goes to agriculture programs, additional Gulf Coast recovery efforts, children’s health care and other Democratic priorities. The minimum-wage increase will represent a domestic victory for Democrats.

“I think that it’s one thing to take care of the troops in Iraq, but it’s also something else to take care of their children, their spouses and their parents here at home,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

Republicans said many of their lawmakers in the House and Senate would be less than enthusiastic about the additional spending but were unlikely to scuttle the compromise.

“Many of our members are not going to be happy by the amount of spending beyond the core purpose of this supplemental, which was to fund the troops,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “It’s not a deal I personally would have made. But if we can prevail on the core portion of the bill, my guess is that it will pass.”

Lawmakers said the final version was still being negotiated with the White House and Republicans to make certain it was acceptable to both, but it was expected to be voted on in the House on Thursday. “I think we’re very close to having things tied down,” said Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
While Democrats were bruised by the veto fight and their decision to back away from the showdown, they believe they are slowly gaining ground. “I view this as the beginning of the end of the president’s policy on Iraq,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Why is Larry Elder Shocked?

Mr. Elder is shocked....just shocked, I tell you, because a vast number of Democrats, in a recent Rasmussen poll, indicated that they either believe that Junior knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened or say they are unsure.

Why would anyone find this shocking?

In a Zogby poll taken in New York, just prior to the GOP convention in NYC, August, 2004, over 30% of Republicans said they had a similar belief.

One does not have to believe the far out conspiracy theories floating around the Net to believe that Bush (and/or a high-ranking official or officials in this administration) knew the attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them.)

I have no way of knowing what the poll questions were, how they were ordered or anything like that, but if a pollster asked me if I believed that Junior had prior knowledge, this independent would say, yes.

Why?

Because he had been warned. We know that. That fact is in the record and has gone uncontested by this White House. The administration had been warned, on occasions to numerous to list in this post.

And yes, even though Condi says that no one could have imagined that planes would be used as flying bombs, they had been warned of this possibility as well.

They were warned of the possibility with regard to the G-8 in Genoa in June of 2001. Who warned them? Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. What's more, they did not discount the warning. Junior spent every night of the conference on a U.S. Naval vessel off the coast of Italy. They knew!

One careful read of Paul Thompson's Timeline, which is carefully composed of contemporaneus reporting from legitimate, trustworthy press and electronic media, is enough to convince me, especially when considered in light of everything this administration has done since then.

I defy anyone to read Thompson's timeline and say they are anything but convinced that the White House was warned and went deaf.

The NeoCons, by their own admission in the PNAC manifesto, needed a "New Pearl Harbor," Mr. Elder, and they got one.

Just a coincidence? O.K. I'm reasonable.

But how many coincidences would it take to cause your eyebrows to go up?

Just wondering, because there are plenty more where that one came from?


While studying psychology in college, I read about an experiment on the pressure to conform.


Several people sat around a long, rectangular table. The "instructor" and all but one person seated at the table were confederates in the experiment. The instructor held up a sheet of paper with a line drawn exactly six inches long. He then handed the sheet to a seated confederate and said, "Guess the length of this line."

The man, as previously agreed, said, "About two inches." The paper then went clockwise around the table until it reached the only person not in on the experiment. Until then, each person "guessed" anywhere from two to three-and-a-half inches, even though the line was obviously much, much longer.


When the paper was slid to the final person — the only one not in on the ruse — he, too, said, "About three inches."

Perhaps this explains a recent poll put out by the "non-partisan" Rasmussen Reports. A mind-blowing 35 percent of Democrats believe the president possessed prior knowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans. Another 26 percent of Democrats said that they are "not sure." Thus 61 percent of Democrats believe or consider themselves uncertain about the assertion that the president knew in advance about the terror attacks of 9/11, yet did nothing to stop them.


Now I've long since accepted that many Democrats flat-out hate the president. Democrats, for example, far more so than Republicans, believe in the idea that government must "level the playing field." So Democrats oppose tax cuts that "help the rich." I strongly disagree, but I get it.
Because Republicans — more so than Democrats — believe in limited government, they stand accused of selfishness. This argument, too, I at least understand. Never mind that in the recent book, "Who Really Cares?," Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks found Republicans gave more to charity — in both time and money — than Democrats. It turns out that if one supports smaller government, he or she is more likely to feel the need to step in and help the needy by donating time and money. Also, the more religious the person, found Brooks, the more likely he or she gives to charity. Religious Democrats gave as much as religious Republicans, but Democrats as a whole were less religious than Republicans. Some secular Democrats feel uncomfortable with a religious president, whom they feel "gets his guidance from God." So I can understand the discomfort of the Democrats with the president's religiosity.

On the issue of global warming, many Democrats side with Al Gore' , who believes the "debate on global warming is over." They find it obscene that the president objects to a worldwide accord to deal with the "crisis." I believe they're wrong, but this, too, I get. If the scientists all agree, why this leaves only the dissenting global-warming-denying, gas-guzzling, smoke-stack-belching capitalists.


Health care is a "right," so says former presidential candidate John Kerry .

Most Democrats nod in agreement. Never mind that of the 46 million people in America who lack health-care insurance, about half go without health care for only a few months, while they are between jobs. About three-quarters go without health care for less than a year. And 10 percent have high-paying jobs, but choose to pocket the money they would spend on insurance premiums. Millions more without health-care insurance came here illegally. But at least I get the Democrats' objection to government "failure" to provide health-care insurance.


As to the war in Iraq most Democrats oppose it. Most Republicans, however, still support the war, and still think victory possible. Only two House Republicans supported the war-funding-with-troop-withdrawal-deadlines legislation passed, at the end of April, by Congress. In the Senate, two Republicans voted for it.

This complicated war now approaches its fifth year, with nearly daily headlines of setbacks and American military deaths. We awaken nearly every morning to headlines of American military deaths and Iraqi sectarian violence. The current Iraqi government appears confused and ineffective; and the international chorus calling Iraq a "blunder" grows louder and louder. Thus, I get the Democrats' anger towards Bush's "stubbornness" for continuing to prosecute the war despite near worldwide opposition and the dwindling number of allies, including the British.

But do 61 percent of Democrats "honestly" believe the president "allowed" 9/11 to occur, taking no measure whatsoever to stop it? Please tell me this reflects an insincere desire to simply conform rather than a sincere belief that the president willingly allowed over 3,000 Americans to perish. Tell me you say this with your fingers crossed.

Please.


Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk-show host and author. His nationally syndicated radio program airs 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. PST and can also be heard on X-M and Sirius satellite radio. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his web page at www.larryelder.com.

CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2007 LAURENCE A. ELDER

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

What's Up With Habeas Corpus?

Maybe the Dems are leaving everything just as Bush and Cheney wanted it, so that the diablo duo can be arrested and held in solitary, as soon as they leave office.

Nice fantasy, at least.


MoveOn Holds Fire on Habeas Corpus
Mon May 21, 2:03 AM ET

The Nation -- MoveOn.org is circulating a new survey asking its 3.3 million members to plan the group's "next steps," offering a dozen choices ranging from issues on the national agenda, like ending the Iraq War and climate change, to less mainstream items such as impeachment. But the survey does not even mention Bush's worst domestic transgression: the suspension of habeas corpus and other fundamental rights in last year's Military Commissions Act (MCA).

The omission is particularly glaring because habeas corpus and constitutional rights are one of the top priorities of the netroots activists who comprise the membership of MoveOn.org. In a Democrats.com survey of over 400 netroots activists after the November election, restoring habeas corpus ranked first for legislative priorities - above even Iraq withdrawal. MoveOn members have said "restoring the Constitution" should be one of the top priorities for the Democratic Congress, according to MoveOn spokesperson Jennifer Lindenauer, and several leading bloggers recently pressed Congressional Democrats to jam habeas restoration into a defense spending bill. Restoring habeas "is something that we elected them to get done," blogged MyDD's Matt Stoller.

But House Democrats failed to take action. Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) meekly argued Democrats could restore habeas in a "separate bill," a futile strategy since Bush can easily veto stand-alone human rights legislation.

While it may seem like MoveOn is planning its "next steps" with habeas off the radar, Executive Director Eli Pariser says the group simply does not survey all of its campaigns. "Surveying is just a way for us to get a sense of the relative priorities -- absent strategic opportunities that we're sure our members will want to seize," he told me via email. The group is looking to find out where it can "play a constructive role," but they haven not "seen that moment yet," he added.

But if MoveOn keeps holding its fire on habeas corpus, it may wind up looking like the diffident Democrats in Congress who refuse to lead on human rights. The battle lines are already drawn.

Most Democrats voted to protect habeas corpus during the MCA fight last year, while Bush backed the bill and will surely veto any attempt to undo it. That is why Congress must attach a human rights provision to essential bills and force Bush's hand. Netroots leaders like MoveOn don't need to wait for the right "moment." They have the power to create the moment, (as I've argued before). An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times recently hammered this point: "If the Democrats were serious about returning the checks and balances to our legal system, they would add a habeas corpus amendment to every vital piece of relevant legislation until the president capitulates or there are enough votes for an override."

In addition to bloggers' activism on this front, there are important efforts by the Alliance for Justice, Amnesty International, Sen. Chris Dodd's Restore-habeas.org, and the ACLU, which launched a high-profile campaign including legislative meetings with bloggers, ads on the New York Times homepage and a MySpace profile for habeas corpus. But these initiatives do not have the financial or political clout of MoveOn, which spent more than every other liberal PAC in the last election cycle except for EMILY's List. But without more activism, especially within the netroots, it looks like habeas corpus may stay on the backburner for MoveOn and the Democratic Congress.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Impeachment: Use It Or Lose It

Yes, Impeach!

But no deals.

Do you hear that, Dems? No deals.

Dave Lindorff: The Democrats and the Impeachment Clause:

What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened?

Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: 'I know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad idea.'

The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let's consider them separately:

The Democrats' Vow

Please do get this done, before we all wind up in Gitmo, or a like facility here at home.

Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.

But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.

Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless

Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.

President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.

But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.

Consider some of the other wild-eyed liberals calling on Congress to restore habeas corpus: William Sessions, director of the F.B.I. under the first President Bush; David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union; the National Association of Evangelicals; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, founded by the Rev. Billy Graham; a long list of other evangelical leaders and scholars; and nearly two dozen sitting and retired federal judges.

There are a half-dozen bills in the House and the Senate that would restore habeas corpus. But the Democratic leadership has not found a way to bring the issue to a vote. The first vehicle is the Defense Department’s budget authorization bill. But Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, chose not to include habeas corpus in his baseline version of the measure, known as the chairman’s mark, which will be taken up by the committee today.

We hope habeas will be added to the bill by the committee, or that other sponsors of measures to restore the ancient right, including Representatives John Conyers Jr. of Michigan and Jerrold Nadler of New York, and Senators Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, will find ways to bring their bills to a vote.

The Democratic majority has a long list of wrongs to right from six years of Mr. Bush’s leadership. We are sympathetic to their concerns about finding a way to revive habeas corpus that won’t die in committee or be subject to a presidential veto of a larger bill. But lawmakers sometimes have to stand on principle and trust the voters to understand.

This is one of those times.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Feingold Scolds Dems For Slow-walking Iraq Pullout

The good people of Wisconsin can't possibly don't know how fortunate they are to have a man of conscious, like Russ Feingold, as one of their senators.

They ought to have to deal with the two jackases from Georgia for the next 6 years.

No, strike that; no one should have to deal with any of the jackasses from Georgia.


Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) spends a lot of time roaming Wisconsin on his "listening sessions" and he says there's one common refrain that he hears from even his most conservative constituents: They want America out of Iraq.


"This attitude about what should be done in Iraq is a consensus -- everywhere but in Washington," said Feingold. "People don't want us just to slow walk this, they don't want us to just worry about the escalation, they want us to get out of Iraq."

The Wisconsin Democrat held a lengthy conference call with leading Progressive bloggers Monday night just an hour after Senate Republicans voted down any debate whatsoever on the bipartisan Warner-Levin resolution opposing George W. Bush's escalation of the Iraq war.

Feingold said that, while he voted to allow debate on the Warner resolution, he finds it "unacceptable" and that he is "determined to support whatever will help us end this mistake quickly and in an orderly and safe manner."

He came down hard on the Warner-Levin amendment, saying that it is weak to begin with and gets worse by making damaging concessions that support the status quo in Iraq. And, even worse, Feingold says, the resolution potentially blocks what he calls the "logical next steps" of getting out of Iraq completely, by proposing a surge in Anbar Province which, Feingold maintains, is a "formula for disaster" because of the number of troops America is losing there.

"Al Anbar is an attempt to try to subdue an insurgency with a huge supply of ground troops -- that's not going to work. And yet the Warner amendment explicitly endorses that kind of an escalation at this time," said Feingold. "And then there's also a provision that attempts to throw roadblocks at any attempts by Congress to use the power of the purse, which is an entirely Constitutional and appropriate step for us to consider at this point."

Feingold, who has announced that he will not seek the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, spent a good part of the call discussing his fellow Democrats, whom he believes are not seizing the power of the majority party or heeding the message sent by voters in the midterm elections when they blindly support the Warner resolution.

"It's going for some kind of a political point instead of getting at the heart of this matter. Who was thinking about whether or not to escalate in Iraq on November 7? That wasn't the issue," said Feingold. "The issue that determined that election was whether we should be in Iraq at all and the answer was 'no.' So we should not sign on to something that, in my view, looks almost like a reauthorization of what's going on right now."

"It is incredibly weak, even dangerous and I think it reminds me more of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution than it does a resolution that really gets us out of this situation."

But Feingold, who voted against the original Iraq war resolution in 2002, seems increasingly fed up with Democrats too wimpy to fight the White House -- even with an incredibly unpopular president -- and who seem more comfortable playing it safe and doing nothing than making the tough decisions.

Here's Feingold on timid Democrats on Capitol Hill:

"This is not a time to finesse the situation. This is not a time for a slow walk. This almost reminds me a little bit of the way Democrats behaved in October 2002, which was trying to play it safe, trying to use words such as 'well, we're going to vote for this resolution, but what it really means is that the president should go to the UN. That stuff doesn't fly. And this kind of attempt to go a little bit of the way just to show you're on the other side of the president doesn't fly either.

"This is an important moment to see if we're really going to try to end this war and, frankly, I am disappointed that Democrats are playing it too safe on this.

"This goes back to the beginning -- remember most of these guys voted for the war, so they've got a heck of a lot of baggage on this thing. So they're afraid, as they have been all along, of standing up to these phony arguments of the White House. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to say they're against the war, but they're not for a timeline to withdraw the troops, they're not for cutting the funding -- you know, they're not for anything that's actually going to get the job done.

"So essentially it's trying to have it both ways and that has to end because Americans are dying unnecessarily. Too many of my colleagues are out there trying to massage this thing and finesse it -- it needs to end.

"They want to be immune from criticism from the White House. That's not how you win, by being afraid of the criticism. You stand up to the criticism and you say 'they were wrong. They took us in there on a fraudulent basis, they've screwed this up, they've screwed up the war against terrorism, they've weakened out military. We are going to take a completely different approach.'

"But the tragedy that we're facing, is that people simply will not do the strong thing when it needs to be done. They wait and they wait and they wait -- and in the meantime, thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily."And when it comes to the other side of the aisle, Feingold says that it's time to take off the gloves and stop trying to extend bipartisanship on an issue as important as war when the Republicans are clearly not interested in doing the right thing.

"When the other side is in their turtle shell and in denial and doing something that nobody believes in, this escalation, the answer isn't to try to have some kind of a half-baked, middle-of-the-road approach and get everybody on board. The answer is to firmly stand with the American people," said Feingold. "It's time to play hardball on this issue. And that means that we should, as the majority party in the Senate and the House, say 'look, we are going to take the lead to try to end this war and we're going to tie this place up as long as it takes.'"

While saying that he has some disagreements with how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has approached Republicans on the anti-escalation resolutions -- saying "this sort of weak-tea approach didn't work" -- Feingold is clear in his reluctance to second-guess what Reid will do next.

"He's a tough guy and he does know that this war has become a terrible mistake and I want to give him the chance to think over what they did to us today and see if he'll pull the trigger," said Feingold. "He has surprised me in a very positive way on a number of occasions so I don't consider him to be the person who's dragging his feet the most here by any means."

Feingold himself is proving to be very tough on the escalation issue -- to the point of saying that the president's "troop surge" is almost irrelevant to the larger point of getting American troops out of Iraq entirely. Feingold's measure, which would carry the force of law if passed, would cut off funding for the entire Iraq effort in six months and place the onus on the Bush administration to get all troops home on that deadline.

"It has historical precedence and it's one that is surely at its core in our Constitutional role in that it says -- as we did with regard to Somalia in the early 90s, as we did with Cambodia -- it says 'look, this mission will end by this date and that's how it is.' And it's worked in the past and it can work here.... It's only the notion of a timeline and backing it up with some kind of date by which the funding is ended that really has any teeth and that's really going to get us out of this war."

And it's the mantra of getting the United States out of Iraq completely that Feingold says are his personal marching orders in the new Congress.

"I simply can't go home every week knowing that Wisconsin men and women are going to die for no good purpose at this point. Simply because politicians want to play it safe," he said quietly, near the end of the conference call. "There comes a point where it's against my conscience to put up with that. So I am for as tough an approach as is necessary to end this war."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

The Media Are Trying To Create Reality Again

Memo To Media: Public Supports Dems' Confronting Of White House
By Greg Sargent bio

In a front page Washington Post article today by Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton about how the Democratic Congress is faltering, the reporters quote Leon Panetta making the case that Dems had better watch out and not be too confrontational with the White House:

"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted ... will pay a price."

Panetta, it appears, has become the go-to person for reporters eager to make the case that Dems are at risk of overreaching or failing. Indeed, it just so happens that this is the second time in just over a month that WaPo has gone to Panetta to get a quote arguing this. Funny coincidence, that.

But let's put that aside and ask a larger question: Is it really true that the public is fed up with partisanship and "sick and tired of the fighting," as Panetta says, and as David Broder and Joe Lieberman keep lecturing?

No doubt one could dig up polls showing that people don't like generically defined "fighting" or "gridlock." But here's another way to look at this: The polls show clearly that the public strongly supports efforts by Dems to confront Bush both on Iraq and on corruption. Check out the numbers in this recent Pew poll:

Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?

Too far 23%
Not far enough 40%
About right 30%
Don't know/
Refused 7%

So 70% say that Dems are being appropriately or even insufficiently aggressive in challenging Bush.

Multiple polls show that solid majorities back Dem efforts to end the war -- efforts which by nature are confrontational and basically partisan, since the GOP more or less (with a few exceptions) continues to back Bush's Iraq policies.

What's more, multiple polls have also found that solid majorities support Dem efforts to probe GOP malfeasance -- also efforts which by nature are confrontational and partisan.

Bottom line: Asking whether the public opposes generic "partisanship" in the current environment is utterly meaningless.

Here's the deal: Bush and the GOP are doing a bunch of things. The American people don't like those things, and want them changed. But Bush and the GOP just keep on doing them, anyway. So Dems are the ones now trying to force Bush and the GOP to change.

In other words, the choice the public faces isn't between "fighting" and "gridlock" on the one hand, and "bipartisan cooperation" on the other. Rather, it's between (a) accepting the disastrous Bush/GOP status quo; and (b) backing Democratic efforts to change it. And the public supports the latter. Even though those efforts are partisan and confrontational. Is that really so hard to fathom?

*****************************
Update: A commenter below notes that "the public supports continuing pressure and a willingness to stand firm from the Democrats," but also that independents do believe bipartisanship "is the key to good public policy." Let me clarify: I don't have a problem believing that. The point is, "bipartisanship" is not on the menu. And faced with the choice they do have -- that is, between the status quo and Dem "fighting" to change it -- the public wants the latter.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Polls Predict More Democratic Victories

"Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party after its 2006 gain of 30 seats to win control of the House,"

Robert Novak reports."All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. The 54-seat Republican gain in 1994 that produced GOP House control was followed by an eight-seat loss in 1996.

However, the current Republican political slump, fueled by President Bush's unpopularity, would reverse that pattern if the election were held today, according to the Democratic polls."

"The incumbent Republican House members who won by less than 2 percent of the vote in 2006 and are targeted for 2008 include Representatives Heather Wilson of New Mexico; Deborah Pryce of Ohio; Mike Ferguson of N.J.; Jon Porter of Nevada; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, and Jean Schmidt of Ohio."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Justice Dept. Lawyers Write Letter to Leahy

US Attorneys Not Alone…

By: Nicole Belle on Friday, April 20th, 2007 at 10:07 AM - PDT


…of feeling intense (and inappropriate) politicization of their Department of Justice jobs.

The Gavel:
Today the House and Senate Judiciary Committees received a letter from anonymous Justice Department employees concerning widespread politicization at the Justice Department. Read the full letter here (pdf). [..]

The letter then goes on to describe confusion and consternation within the divisions, and ultimately a meeting that was demanded by staff, in which Michael Ellston, Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, "was offensive to the point of insulting" in addressing the concerns. (Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has also testified regarding the firings of the US Attorneys.) Ellston attributed the removals from the interviewee lists to "spelling errors" and other such technical problems.

The letter continues from there:

When division personnel staff later compared the remaining interviewees with the candidates struck form the list, one common denominator appeared repeatedly: most of those struck form the list had interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for a "liberal" cause, or otherwise appeared to have "liberal" leanings. Summa cum laude graduates of both Yale and Harvard were rejected for interviews.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Democrats Ramp Up Pressure, as Polls Show Americans Behind Them

By Richard Cowan and David Alexander

Reuters

Thursday, February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.

Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.

The political maneuvering came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 percent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.

Bush, in an address in Washington, warned U.S. lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $93.4 billion emergency troop funding measure.

"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."

With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the U.S. military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.

Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.

"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.

The House was expected to approve a resolution on Friday opposing Bush's 21,500-troop increase for Iraq. The House took up the measure, which does not force Bush to act, after the Senate failed in its initial effort to bring a similar resolution up for debate.

Reid announced he was scheduling an unusual Saturday Senate vote on whether to begin debate on the resolution. Congress had been scheduled to take its first recess of the new session beginning on Friday, so the decision would force the Senate to remain in Washington, increasing pressure on senators to act quickly.

But Senate Republicans said they would continue to oppose Democratic efforts unless votes on their proposals were allowed.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.

The poll was conducted February 7 to February 11 among 1,509 Americans and a margin of error of three percentage points.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland)


....and the truth shall set us free.