Uniter Not a Divider

Bush blasts Congress on several fronts
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/bush/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush attacked Congress on Wednesday, ripping the new Democratic leadership for failing to achieve much in their first nine months of power.

President Bush speaks at a White House press conference on Wednesday.

Bush used his opening statement to list areas where he said "Congress has work to do": health care; security; the budget; education; housing; trade; help for military veterans; law enforcement and the judiciary.

He complained about progress on a number of bills before Congress, including children's health insurance, spending plans and internal surveillance legislation, saying Congress has wasted much of the past nine months.

"Now the clock is winding down. In some key areas, Congress is just getting started," Bush said.

"One of Congress' basic duties is to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Yet Congress has not sent me a single appropriations bill," Bush said.

Bush said congressional Democrats are wasting time with proposed legislation calling the actions of Ottoman Turks against Armenians during World War I "genocide."

"With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire," Bush said. "The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. ...
"Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day," Bush said.

U.S.-Turkey relations were strained further Wednesday as the Turkish parliament overwhelmingly approved military action against Kurdish separatists based in Iraq. Turkey has massed 60,000 troops along its border with Iraq.

Bush said Wednesday the U.S. is asking the Turkish government for restraint.

"We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interests to send troops into Iraq," he said while acknowledging that some Turkish troops have crossed the border.

On the war on terror, Bush said it was important that Congress act on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that progress can continue to be made against al Qaeda.

"Al Qaeda's still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq. They're dangerous elsewhere. Al Qaeda's not going to go away any time," Bush said. "That's why it's important for us to be listening -- you know, finding out what their intentions are and what are their plans, so we can respond to them."

On children's health care, Bush earlier this month vetoed legislation that would increase spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase. Congressional Democrats are trying to gather enough votes for to override a veto.

It's Bush's 20th press conference this year.

Bush veto for child health bill

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7026454.stm

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill to expand a children's health care insurance scheme, after it was passed with a large majority in the Senate.

Mr Bush argues it takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.

The vetoed bill proposed higher tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.

Children's health insurance is set to be a campaign issue in next year's elections, analysts say.

Eighteen Republican senators joined Democrats last week in passing the legislation by a 67-29 vote.
But the House of Representatives, which approved the bill by 265-159, was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

It is only the fourth time Mr Bush has used his veto power in the course of his presidency.

Public support

The State Children's Health Insurance Programme (SCHIP) currently subsidises health care for some 6.6 million people, most of them children.

Mr Bush had said he wanted only a $5bn increase in funding for the scheme.

He argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that was too costly.

His decision to veto the bill is likely to prove unpopular with many people, however, correspondents say.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll suggested that more than seven in 10 Americans supported the $35bn increase proposed in the bill.

Democrats in the House say they will seek to persuade sufficient Republican congressmen to change sides to be able to override Mr Bush's veto.

But House Republican leader Roy Blunt said he was "absolutely confident" that he would be able to prevent that happening.

Many Republicans are likely to feel the pressure of public opinion ahead of congressional elections in November next year.

Zeitgeist: the movie

Ok, first of all I do not intend for this site to be a crazy conspiratorial blog run by a left wing nut job. I may be left wing but I do not like to think of myself as a "nut job." At least on most days. Second, I was sent this video by friend of mine and finding myself with a bit of free time, I watched it. On the whole, it is quite terrifying. The conclusions the film draws about Christianity are, to a large extent, views I've held for several years now. With any knowledge of the history of the world, the views that the Bible is simply borrowed from many long established religions - most pagan - is easy to see. Approach the next part of the film with caution. I find all the facts very interesting and easy to buy in to. However, I'm sure I could also view a film with exactly the opposite viewpoint and believe that too. I also have done absolutely no research for myself. I simply present this to you to hear your comments on this. Truth? Fiction? Crazy? You decide.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Sorry

It seems that much like the Iraqi congress I have decided to take some time off lately. I didn't want to be that blog with this kind of post on it but it seems I have. And some new comments have been added (thanks ted) so it seems their is at least someone out there who actually reads this. I am notoriously busy but always find time to rant about this administration and will begin to continue to do so again. Keep commenting all!

1...2...36 Strikes - You're Out!

Another One Bites the Dust

In Honor of Karl Rove's Resignation

Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Ass on the Way Out

Iowa Straw Poll Results

This really says nothing since Giuliani and McCain didn't participate for some reason but I feel it should be posted here anyways. Here's the results:

Mitt Romney: 31.5%
Mike Huckabee: 18.1%
Sam Brownback: 15.3%
Tom Tancredo: 13.7%
Ron Paul: 9.1%
Tommy Thompson: 7.3%
Fred Thompson: 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani: 1.3%
Duncan Hunter: 1.2%
John McCain: 1%
John Cox: .1%

HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/index.html

I think it's important that we all become aware of this. If this concerns you like it should, please let others know about General Lute's comments. THIS IS NOT OKAY!

Also, here is a link to the interview with General Lute on NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12688693. I am concerned that more people are not aware of this current situation. Do not let this slide by you. Take action now!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the "Iraq war czar." It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

"The president's position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."

Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

Logo "Debate" Review

I don't imagine a lot of people caught the Presidential Forum on Logo. I don't have the channel either but was able to get it online as a live feed. I encourage you to pull it up because it was very well done. Though I was under the impression that it was a debate and it indeed was not. It really was just a talk show featuring most of the Democratic candidates and only questions regarding issues important to LGBT community. And I think I liked it. I would be interested in seeing more of this type of program with a focus on a certain issue. And shame on the Republicans for not managing to show up here and state their views. But I imagine they think all gays have AIDS and AIDS apparently can be spread through handshakes so I guess the logic works out.

Clearly their were two types of candidates at this forum - those that have potential to be elected and those that don't. The former are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson, the latter are Kucinich and Gravel. The difference lies in semantics. Is it marriage or civil union? Does it matter? Aren't both better than know?

And all the legitimate candidates were on pins and needles at this thing because one wrong move could be used against them severely in the future. The worst played moment came in Richardson's answer to, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I never even knew what his answer was. I don't think he answered a single question for the entire twenty minutes. I have been know to proclaim by admiration of Richardson but tonight was not his night.

By far the most uncomfortable person in the room that evening was John Edwards who has given a few indications that he is not comfortable with equal gay rights. Wow, that straight boy was sweating like he was in a gay bar during happy hour. He just needed to relax.

Kucinich really connected with the studio audience and he said some pretty amazing things, I will admit. But there is that little thing in my head that knows he is striving for an unachievable utopia. And I think he's amazing for running for president now two times to get his voice out there. Anf who knows, maybe one day he will be listened to more and actually get somewhere. (He admitted that he ran five times before getting elected to Congress. How cute.)

This was the first "debate" that Obama actually worked for me. Quiet conviction. And Hillary really didn't do well. Melissa Etheridge (YEAH!) really got emotional with her and Clinton became very cold in her response. Throughout the night I heard, "You are all great people but not great enough to be equal in every way to a straight person." And that's sad. But it is hard to tell if the candidates actually believe that statement or they are just trying to get elected. Perhaps naively, I choose to believe the latter. It says something that they at least showed up, right?

Even though it really wasn't a debate here are some awards:

Winner (with the gays): Dennis Kucinich
Winner (for everyone else): Barack Obama
Loser: Bill Richardson (but rather disqualified for not answering any questions)
Straightest: John Edwards
Best Host: MELISSA ETHERIDGE! Yeah! How great is she? (Though they were all much better than any of the previous debate moderators.)
Candidate Who Has No Idea What LGBT Means: Mike Gravel

Logo Presidential Debate

How this debate plays out could be something very interesting to watch. How will John Edwards dodge questions? How uncomfortable will Hillary get? How cool will Obama try to play it?

Apparently you can watch the debate online at http://www.logoonline.com/ Thursday, August 9th at 9 PM ET / 6 PM PT. I'll be sure to catch it.

Anyone Else?

No Comment

U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq on the Rise in August
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555667

NPR.org, August 7, 2007 · Four U.S. soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs in the Baghdad area, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 19 the number of troop deaths in the first week of August.

The latest casualty figures could signal a resurgence in attacks after July's eight-month low.

Meanwhile, Iraq's political crisis worsened, with five more ministers boycotting Cabinet meetings - leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's unity government without a Sunni political bloc.

The new cracks in al-Maliki's government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Three Task Force Marne soldiers were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, the military said.

One coalition soldier was killed and another wounded Monday when their vehicle was hit by an armor-piercing explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, in a western section of the capital, according to a separate statement.

Washington has accused Iran of supplying Shiite extremists with EFPs to step up attacks against American forces. Tehran denies the allegations.

The military also said earlier that four soldiers were killed in a powerful combat explosion in restive Diyala province north of the capital on Monday.

U.S. commanders have warned they expect militants to try to upstage a September report on military and economic progress in Iraq.

The deaths raised to at least 19 members of the U.S. military who have died this month, or a rate of about three per day, putting August on track for a heavier toll after a drop in July.

Seventy-nine American troop deaths were reported, the lowest number since 70 killed in November.

More than 100 American forces died each month in the April-to-June period as the incoming U.S. troops were deployed with the Iraqi army in Baghdad's dangerous streets and security outposts.

Despite the relatively low number in July, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command, has blamed nearly three-quarters of the attacks on rogue Shiite militias the military believes are being armed and trained by Iran, which he said was increasing its support ahead of the pivotal report to be delivered to Congress in September.

The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met Monday for their third round of talks in just over two months. The U.S. Embassy called the talks between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, "frank and serious."

But it was al-Maliki's troubles that seized the most attention. The Cabinet boycott of five ministers loyal to former Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi left the government, at least temporarily, without participants who were members of the Sunni political apparatus - a deep blow to the prime minister's attempt to craft reconciliation among the country's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis and Kurds.

The defense minister is from a Sunni background but has no political ties and was chosen by al-Maliki.

The Allawi bloc, a mixture of Sunnis and Shiites, cited al-Maliki's failure to respond to its demands for political reform.

The top Sunni political bloc already had pulled its six ministers from the 40-member Cabinet of al-Maliki, a Shiite, last week.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

Debate Review: Republicans in Iowa, August 5th

I was able to get the whole video of the Republican debate on YouTube. I just love that site. As always, it is hard for me to sit and watch the Republicans debate issues to hear one sexist, closeminded answer after another. But I still find in necessary to watch. Someone may surprise me. And a few did.

I want to point out first of all that anyone who supports anything Tom Tancredo says is no friend of mine. His view that the holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina, could be bombed as a means of achieving victory is the most ridiculous, misunderstood comment of the debate. We are NOT at war with Islam, we are at war with al-Qaeda which represents a very small, extremist sect of fundamentalist Islam. I could not believe Tancredo would say something like this and I wish Stephanopoulos would have elaborated on that more and allowed other candidates to respond. I wonder how many other Republicans would support the destruction of Islamic holy sites. I would hope the others are not as uneducated on those matters as Tancredo.

Mitt Romney just seems like the poster child for Republicans. He's masculine, tall, attractive, and carries around a pretty hefty conservative agenda. He's the father of middle/upper class white America. And reminds me a little bit of Stan from American Dad. Anyone else? These people really get under my skin. But it seems only natural that he would be leading in the Republican polls.

And it was nice to see that Anderson Cooper's prediction that future debates would see voter generated questions came true. There were just a few video questions and I believe one emailed question. Anderson you are my hero.

One thing I can say in the Republican candidates favor is that they are not afraid to dissent with their fellow candidates and party. They represent more diverse opinions than the Democratic candidates strangely enough. There's cute, little Ron Paul, that racist mother-fucker Tancredo, that lovable Rudy Giuliani, and the quietly resigned John McCain. And that makes their debates somewhat watchable.

But let's get to the awards shall we?

Winner: Mike Huckabee
Runner-up: Mitt Romney
Most interesting and likely to recieve my vote (but not really): Rudy Giuliani
Most racist (and this was a toughy): Bomb Tancredo
Democratic pincushion of the evening: Barack Obama
Candidate that looks most like a toad or other amphibian-like creature: Tommy Thompson
Best Response: Rudy Giuliani when given 30 seconds to describe his mistakes in life. Watch it. It was classic.

That Can't Be Good

190,000 weapons 'missing in Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm

The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years.

The Pentagon did not dispute the figures, but said it was reviewing arms deliveries procedures.

About $19.2bn has been spent by the US since 2003 on Iraqi security forces.

GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, said at least $2.8bn of this money was used to buy and deliver weapons and other equipment.

Correspondents say it is now feared many of the weapons are being used against US forces on the ground in Iraq.

Discrepancies

The GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005.

MISSING IN IRAQ

AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces:
135,000
Helmets: 115,000

During this period, security training was led by Gen David Petraeus, who now commands all US forces in Iraq.
The GAO reached the estimate - 111,000 missing AK-47s and 80,000 missing pistols - by comparing the property records of the Multi-National Security Transition Command for Iraq against records maintained by Gen Petraeus of the arms and equipment he ordered.

Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary Mark Kimmitt told AFP the Pentagon was "reviewing policies and procedures to ensure US-funded equipment reaches the intended Iraqi security forces under the Iraq program".

Weapons delay

The report comes as a political battle rages in Washington over the progress of the war in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress by mid-September on the success of efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance.

Meanwhile, at the end of July, the US Defence Department admitted that the US-led coalition in Iraq had failed to deliver nearly two-thirds of the equipment it promised to Iraq's army.

The Pentagon said only 14.5m of the nearly 40m items of equipment ordered by the Iraqi army had been provided.

The US military commander in charge of training in Iraq has asked for help in speeding up the transfer of equipment.

Iraq's ambassador to the US said the delays were hindering the fighting capacity of its armed forces.

Republican Debate?

Did anyone else know there was a debate today? That sure slipped by me. Guess it got covered up by too much bridge news. (OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART BECAUSE OF ONE DISASTER! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!) Well I'll have to research this one and get back to you. And by the way, who's Duncan Hunter? Anyone know where this guy came from? More later...

Above: Photo of the Republican Presidential Candidates or a gathering for the funeral of some old, dead, white guy.

Congress: "Next Window, I'm on Break"

I'm so glad the congress has taken five days off their month long vacation. Poor them. And seems Pelosi really wanted to get into that bathing suit by conceding to Bush's wiretapping bill. From NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12512991):

Congress has finally recessed for the summer, but it took an extraordinary amount of time and effort for that to happen.

The House of Representatives worked until the wee hours of Sunday morning before beginning the August recess; the issues the members faced were tough, and partisanship didn't help.

In the end, President Bush got his way on wiretapping, but the Democratic majorities pushed through their bills on energy, ethics and health insurance for children of the working poor.

NOOOO!!!!!

Congress approves President Bush's spy bill
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/04/congress.spying.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Democratic-led Congress yielded to President Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects.

Civil liberties groups charged the measure would create a broad net that would sweep up law-abiding U.S. citizens.

But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28.

The action came amid warnings of possible attacks on the United States.

"After months of prodding by House Republicans, Congress has finally closed the terrorist loophole in our surveillance law -- and America will be the safer for it," declared House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

"We think it is not the bill that ought to pass," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. But he conceded he and fellow Democrats were unable to stop the measure in this national security showdown with the White House.

"Protecting America is our most solemn obligation," Bush said earlier in the day in urging Congress to send him the bill so he could sign it into law.

The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

My Prediction

Okay. I've done some analysis on all the major candidates. Really, just barely scartching the surface. I'll leave my in depth research to after the nominations have been made. So I thought, just for kicks I'd do an 08/09 Prediction of how the race will play out. It will most likely be completely wrong. And you can forget all about this. But it will be necessary "I Told You So" material if I should happen be right. And what could be better than that? So here it goes folks:

Democratic Presidential Nominees:

President: Hillary Clinton
Vice President: Barack Obama

Black and white. Male and female. Experienced and inexperienced. What could be better than that to represent the party of the people?

Republican Presidential Nominees:

President: Rudy Giuliani
Vice President: Mitt Romney

Crazy White Redneck: "Shit, a women and a black guy, or a divorcee and a polygamist? Fuck, I'm going with the second one."

Independent Presidential Nominees:

President: Michael Bloomberg
Vice President: It doesn't matter

It's going to happen and it's really going to throw a big 'ol wrench into things again. But luckily only for the Republicans. He may just well be the alternative Republican candidate to those who just can't push out a hanging chad for the womanizing, polygamist team as easily as the Crazy White Redneck.

Election Results

Drumroll please...

Clinton/Obama: 55%
Giuliani/Romney: 35%
Bloomberg/Damned if I know: 10%

It will be the highest total yet for the Independents as the Republicans try to pick their poison. And this time, they'll screw themselves in the process instead of the controversy Quasimodo Nader has created for the Democrats in the past. And I'll sit back and watch the votes roll in in hopes of peace in the future. For a change.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Michael Moore on Hillary Clinton

Candidates: Hillary Clinton

It is my humble opinion that Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. Of the top three candidates - Obama and Edwards the other two - Clinton seems to have the most confidence, experience, and clout. And I think Clinton is that candidate that will provide that change, but not too much change, that Americans are looking for. I say again: I am not picking my favorite candidates on this blog, I am looking at the facts to predict who the candidates will be. And it is my opinion that Americans are looking for a change they can be comfortable with - not too dramatic or drastic. Just enough to test the waters and see how it goes. Sorry Ron Paul. I don't think we'll be hearing much more from you. (Now let's see if the Ron Paul police come after me again for that.)

So who is this Clinton? What gives her that slight difference? That answer, my friends, lies between her legs. That's right folks, Hillary Clinton is... a woman! And it would seem that the perfect replacement for stubborn, stupid, supper-on-the-table-by-6, masculine president we have now could be the feminine touch. We need someone that instead of using Iraq as his own personal real-world Sims game, will look at things realistically and use dialogue before force. Clinton is that person. That little bit of change that will carry her to the final head-to-head battle.

And from what I've researched about Hillary she has all the right plans for America's future. She wants safe withdrawal from Iraq now, even before her election. And if... um... when that doesn't happen it will be her priority once taking the office. She has plans for energy independence and combating global climate change. She wants government reform and accountability. She is a strong supporter of the middle class. She is pro-choice. It's all there really.

The question is: Is Clinton full of crap? And it seems to me that, of the Democratic candidates, she is the most full of crap. If you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko you know that she once was a strong supporter of universal health care and is now the second largest recipient of healh care money in the senate. Is this okay? Well not really. But it is evidence that Clinton is talking out her ass. Probably more so then we know. And it is for this reason that she is the most experienced politician. And why she will win the Democratic nomination. Cynical and true.

Chance of Nomination: 75%

In Other "Non-Bridge" News...

House Rejects Democratic Spy Bill
from The Associated Press

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12492638



WASHINGTON August 3, 2007, 9:09 p.m. ET · Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.


The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207.


Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it.


THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.


Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.


That left the outcome in doubt hours after Bush implored lawmakers to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before leaving Washington for a monthlong summer break — a potentially vulnerable time for attacks because of the high-travel season.


In the Senate, Democrats prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House after getting a vote on their own measure. Both were debated Friday night.


The House, meanwhile, moved toward a vote on a Democratic-written bill opposed by Bush and expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed there to pass.


It would require a review by the FISA court within 15 days after intelligence agents get the newly expanded powers for eavesdropping on terrorists abroad without warrants and end that authority in four months.
Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."


"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short."


Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.


The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.


Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists.


The two sides also struggled over how long new powers that Bush wants should last.


Generally, the law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.


Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before the eavesdropping began. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:


—Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
—FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.
—The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.

Just Because We Can Use a Reminder

If you believe in this message - post a comment with one simple word: Peace.

No End in Sight Trailer

Candidate Response (kind of)

Forgive the lower frequency of posts for the past few days. I have been away.

While away, I received one message back from the candidates regarding my question about fear to live in the US. Well, actually from one of the "volunteers" from the Ron Paul campaign. Not much. But for what it's worth here's the message:

Thanks for your note. I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but I myself don't feel
safer with my civil liberties eroded they way they have been under the Bush
Administration.

Yours in liberty,
Matt G. -- Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008

I have somewhat enjoyed Paul's campaign for his desire to hold the Bush administration accoutable for their criminal actions, as this statement suggests. I imagine Paul would not let a volunteer from his campaign stray too far from his point of view as well. In all other aspects, however, Ron Paul is crazy. The amount of change he proposes is absurd and frankly bogus. But he will not receive a nomination any time soon so we won't have to worry. Unless he ends up on the Libertarian ticket or something. But then we still won't have to worry I suppose.

Thanks "Matt G" for the response.

Interesting Interview with Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Libertarian Message Attracts Supporters

All Things Considered, July 25, 2007 · Republican congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has distinguished himself from the pack with his libertarian message, and his campaign's momentum has been accelerating with impressive speed.

Paul is a doctor — an obstetrician and gynecologist who was an Air Force flight surgeon in the 1960s.

In Congress, he is a steadfast opponent of big government, voting against many tax increases, against the USA Patriot Act, and against two wars with Iraq.

The former Libertarian presidential candidate has created a stir on the Internet. He also has raised a significant amount of money while spending very little, which gives him about the same amount of cash in the bank as one-time Republican front-runner John McCain.

Paul, the only Republican to vote against the current war in Iraq, talks to Robert Siegel about the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, congressional pensions and other issues he is highlighting on the campaign trail.

If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?

As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war…. Of course, in the overall foreign policy, I'd like to bring the troops home from most other places around the world, too.

Get the troops back on American soil? That's what you propose?

That is correct.

Withdraw the Navy from the Persian Gulf?

Yes, definitely, because that [having U.S. ships there] is very provoking and that sends a signal that we're there for the oil, and a lot of people do admit that. We don't care about some of the problems in Africa like we care about the problems in the Middle East, and oil is one of the big factors.

You would also, if you had your druthers, withdraw from NATO?

Yes, certainly. That is sort of an old right, conservative Republican position, and certainly after the Cold War ended, there was a lot less need for NATO. I think NATO is embarking in the wrong direction right now by moving right up to the borders of Russia and almost trying to renew the Cold War unnecessarily.

Out of the United Nations?

Yes, I certainly think so, because it's part of the draining of our resources. It's not like you have to close it down in one day…. If you could immediately limit it to the participation in war, it wouldn't bother me quite so much. But I don't think our interests are well served by giving some of our sovereignty up.

What you've described as an old, conservative Republican view of foreign affairs is called, in many quarters, isolationism.

Some people who would like to diminish its value call it that. I don't call it that, because to me, it's the opposite. It conforms with what the founders advised, and that is, yes, we don't get involved in the entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations, but they strongly advocated trade and talking and travel. And now that we follow that policy with Vietnam … [the country] has Westernized; we trade with them; their president comes here, we invest in Vietnam. So we achieved in peace what we couldn't achieve with war. But it's a far cry from isolationism.

Do I have it right that in your years in Congress, you have not taken advantage of the congressional pension system?

That is correct. Of course, you only take advantage [of the pension] when you leave. No, I don't participate. My wife sometimes asks me about it — the wisdom of all this.

Why don't you take part in it?

On principle… [i]t's probably not quite as biased an advantage as it used to be. But when I first went into Congress, it was such a biased system, and so I saw this as an abuse of power, and a privilege that members of Congress should not have.

You have not taken congressional trips overseas.

No…. I don't because too many times they're junkets. Sometimes they're done with great sincerity, but since I'm a noninterventionist, I already know what our dealings should be with other countries. I don't need to go and check on how our money's being spent. I don't want to spend the money.

Have you traveled on your own nickel overseas as a congressman?

Not very often. I did… a lot of traveling as a flight surgeon. But since that time, I've only made one major trip, and it was a major economic event: a translation of a major economic textbook… into Czech, and so I went to Prague to help celebrate this translation, and that was done with personal finances, as well as help from the University of Prague.

I want to ask you a couple of quick things. I want to ask you first about your exchange with [New York] Mayor [Rudy] Giuliani in the recent debate when you said, look at why al-Qaida struck at New York — the U.S. had been bombing Iraq, the U.S. presence in the Middle East was what they were objecting to — and Mayor Giuliani turned on you as if to say, you've just said it was as if the U.S. deserved the attacks of Sept. 11.

It was a political deal for him to try to jump on that, but it was absurd. It's sort of like, we find a murderer and we look for the motive — then you're blaming the victim. No, I'm not blaming the victim, I'm not blaming the American people, but I am blaming American policy for contributing to the problem. I defended that with quotes from the 9/11 Report, quotes from [Paul] Wolfowitz... and then the most preposterous thing he said was that he had never heard of such a thing. Well, where has he been? That's why I presented him a list of books — if you just read this, you would know where these ideas come from, because it's a condition that has been described clearly by the CIA, that there is blowback. These things come back to hit us..... If you look at the Iranian problems today, that started in 1953 when we first threw over a democratically elected leader, and we've been suffering ever since.

Realistically, what chance do you give yourself of winning the Republican nomination?

A lot more than it was six months ago, I tell you that. We're in the top tier now; we're third and fourth in money and money in the bank, and our numbers are growing. But I know what the odds are. But I also know how many young people and others are very receptive to this, and said, you know, it's about time we talked about freedom rather than how the government is going to take care of us from cradle to grave, invade our privacy, fight these war[s], and run the economy.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

GoLeft TV - July 24 News

Email to the Candidates

I was able to track down some email contacts for some of the candidates. None of them really have a snowballs chance in a world affected by Global Climate Change (clever, I know) but I thought I'd ask them a quick question. I asked them:

Are you more afraid to live in this country now than you were seven years ago? Do you think that, in general, Americans now live their lives with more fear than seven years ago? If so, can this fear be mended with you as president?

The question was asked to Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

I will certainly post the candidates answers on this blog if any should come in.

Candidates: Bill Richardson

I thought I would take a quick look at my new favorite candidate - Bill Richardson. Not because I think he will get the nomination but because I think he might get the VP nom. So here's just a few things I found.

He wants OUT of Iraq NOW! Even by the end of this year while Dubya's still in charge. Wow. Good luck. But I'm completely behind you on that. Richardson thinks the money being wasted over there would be better spent on domestic issues. Sense? What?

Climate Change prevention? Check. He did it already in New Mexico by making it a "Clean Energy State." Don't know what that means entirely but it sounds pretty good to me.

Pro-Choice? Yep.

Equal Rights? He's got that too folks.

I am a little confused by Richardson's Health Care Plan. You can read it for yourself here http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/healthcare. Key words here is "affordable" health care. I believe the States could achieve what every other industrialized nation has and have universal, free health care for all. So we differ a bit here. However, there is no question that this plan is better than we have now. But then, better than what we have now on anything is not hard to achieve.

And, lastly, from his website:

This administration’s lack of realism has led us to a dangerous place. We need to take a different path. A path based on reality, not unilateralist illusions. A path that understands that the gravest dangers that threaten us today do not threaten only us – and that therefore to pursue our national interest and meet these challenges we must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between. This is a path not of hard words, but of hard work. A path of moral strength, not pious judgments. A path of strong diplomacy, backed up by a strong military and strong alliances. This is the path of American leadership.

Nice.

Chance of Nomination: 10%

YouTube Debate Review

I don't really have that much to say about the YouTube Debate other than I thought it was one of the greatest presidential debates I can recall seeing. The questions were pointed and somewhat different. And they were coming from what seemed to be passionate, concerned voters looking for answers.

That's not to say that we got answers however. Almost all the candidates seemed to avoid straight answers just as politicians always do. Especially the front runners who actually have a chance at the nomination. The crazies like Gravel had no problem with straight talk and you see what effect that's been having on his poll numbers.

My favorite candidate of the evening was Bill Richardson. I really haven't paid much attention to him, nor do I think I should since he won't get the nomination, but he intrigued me nonetheless. I think he has the best exit strategy for Iraq withdrawal, the best stance on gay marriage, immigration, and education reform. And a nice speaking style that makes me believe him with the right balance of compassion, anger, and, for lack of a better word, chutzbah. But I'm thinking he would be a very good choice for VP for Hillary. Oops. I spoke to soon. But you know its true folks. Lets all just start getting used to it now shall we? And he would be a great face for the rising Latino poplulation in the States. Best of all, what would scare the Taliban and Republicans more than a woman and a Latino running this country? It's perfect.

And a few more awards for the evening:

Best Performance from a Candidate Who May Actually Win: Hillary Clinton

Most Dodged Questions: Hillary Clinton

Most Awkward Moment: John Edwards talking about women's rights

Best YouTube Question: The montage on how to fix healthcare

The Missing Question: Abortion

Most Brady Bunch Moment: All the candidates loving the candidate to the left of them. Irony anyone?

Greatest Moment: Dennis Kucinich: "Notice they didn't put anyone to the left of me." Anderson Cooper: "I don't think it's possible."

YouTube Debate Winners

I'll have a more in depth review of the debate tomorrow but for now - something quick:

Winner: Bill Richardson
Runner Up: Joe Biden
Best Performance from Someone Who Will Not Get the Nomination: Bill Richardson
Worst Performance: The cameramen who decided to go with so many tight face shots
Most Ornary: Mike Gravel
Best Performance from a Female: Hillary Clinton

YouTube Debate Tonight

I hope everyone will get a chance to watch the first YouTube debates tonight on CNN. I think it should be pretty interesting and certainly historic. The Democrats, I imagine, will pretend to take it in stride and play it real cool as they "connect with the people." You know they're scared as hell as to what they're going to be asked. The Republicans will be even more awkward however. That should be the most interesting. But anyway, I'll be putting in a review tomorrow.

Questions about Giuliani

I keep hearing a lot about Rudy Giuliani. He's a fraud. A flip flopper. Whatever. What do people think of him? Is he pro choice? What does he think of Global Climate Change? How about gay rights? I can't figure this guy out. Your knowledge is welcome and any sources you have for it would be great. Thanks.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

Cheney to be in charge during Bush colonoscopy
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/20/bush.colonoscopy/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney will serve as acting president briefly Saturday while President Bush is anesthetized for a routine colonoscopy, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday.

Bush is scheduled to have the medical procedure, expected to take about 2 1/2 hours, at the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, Snow said.

Bush's last colonoscopy was in June 2002, and no abnormalities were found, Snow said.

The president's doctor had recommended a repeat procedure in about five years.

The procedure will be supervised by Dr. Richard Tubb and conducted by a multidisciplinary team from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, Snow said.

A colonoscopy is the most sensitive test for colon cancer, rectal cancer and polyps, small clumps of cells that can become cancerous, according to the Mayo Clinic. Small polyps may be removed during the procedure.

Snow said that was the case when Bush had colonoscopies before becoming president.
Snow himself is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer that began in his colon and spread to his liver.

Snow told reporters he had a chemo session scheduled later Friday. Watch Snow talk about Bush's procedure and his own colon cancer »

"The president wants to encourage everybody to use surveillance," Snow said.

The American Cancer Society recommends that people without high-risk factors or symptoms begin getting screened for signs of colorectal cancer at age 50.

Candidates: Rudy Giuliani

I really thought I liked Giuliani when he was the mayor of New York. I really knew nothing about his politics nor did I care. I thought he handled 9/11 really well and vividly remember his speech to America on SNL saying it was okay to laugh again. But that’s in the past and I would rather consider the now when looking into his nomination.

Giuliani reminds me in a strange way of Barack Obama. Both have used this kind of “real guy” charisma as the basis of their campaign. Giuliani has seemingly no dirty laundry that has not already been hung out to dry. But he doesn’t shove it in our face in the same way that Obama does. While Obama seems to say, “Look at how normal and great I am! Vote for me!” Giuliani says, “Yeah, what’re you gonna do about it?” And I kind of like that. But let’s talk about his politics a wee bit shall we?

For what its worth, Giuliani lists “12 Commitments to the American People” on his website www.joinrudy2008.com:

I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on us.
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Ok. Whatever that means. Seems like a list of empty promises that look good on paper anyways. But there is nothing very new here. For a Republican anyway. And I thought this guy used to be pro choice? I need to look further than these “commitments.”

I think he really is kind of pro choice. He says he “supports reasonable restrictions on abortion.” Yeah so do I. Nine months is a little late. So this issue is a little shrouded in creative jargon that is appealing both to liberals and conservatives.

Iraq. Giuliani really seems to think the war is a mistake and a bad thing but that it must be won. While I believe it has already been lost, he is still going to truck on it seems. And wants no “artificial timetable” for withdrawl. Damn. This things going to go on forever.

I don’t quite know how one can make tax cuts and restore fiscal discipline in times of mass deficit. But that’s one of those magical Republican mysteries.

And there’s some other stuff on his website. But noticeably absent is the issue of global climate change. In my research I can’t find Giuliani’s specific beliefs on GCC. One of his “commitments” is to create energy independence. But I see no real plan for dealing with this.

Giuliani seems very mysterious to me. I don’t really get him on a lot of things because he doesn’t make things very clear. The mark of someone who will get the nomination. And it is for that reason that I am almost certain Giuliani will be getting the Republican nomination. I’ll have to investigate further when he gets the coveted seat.

Chance of nomination: 85%

Fear

It has recently occured to me just how much the United States is dominated by fear. A fear which has been replaced by a security in superiority over the rest of the world. Let's use a historical example to illustrate my point.

Rome. Rome is quite possibly the greatest superpower in history. (The Egyptians, Third Reich, Napoleon's France, and Colonial England also can top the list.) They pretty much did whatever they wanted, killed who ever the wanted, raped, pillaged, and just generally told other people what to do. And who was going to argue with a sword? But eventually people got sick of it. And major corruption, politically and economically split the empire in two and eventually destroyed itself with its own arrogance.

See where I'm going with this? I see the States in a very similar way. And instead of the Colliseum, we have a never ending string of reality shows and game shows hosted by the nobodys of yesteryear - Wayne Brady, Joey Fatone, Drew Carey, and Howie Mandel. But I digress.

What is happening now is our period of downfall. We think we're still all that and a bag of chips but we're just... well... a bag of chips. And "Better Made" brand chips at that. It is easy to see political corruption with a government that has absolutely NO FUCKING CLUE what they are doing and a population that is continually being lied to and brainwashed. And our division as a country is not a physical one but it is very real. Red America and Blue America are two seperate worlds. And uniting now seems a very unlikely possibility. (Though "I'm a Uniter Not a Divider" might disagree. Asshole.) Economic disparity does not take an expert to notice in the United States. I have a father out of work and I notice it everyday.

So we return to fear. I think Bush is afraid out of his fucking mind. That is the reason he went into war in the first place. He can't stand a sense of a culture and people different than his own in the world that America somehow owns. I don't support a lot of fundamentalist Islams doctrines either but the really great thing is I don't have have to. I don't support most Christians ideas either. So what? They don't bother me. (Unless they tell me who to marry and what I can do with MY body. Then, yeah, we have issues.) I don't bother them. I go on with the rest of my life. But Bush is afraid of the "different" people with brown skin and funny clothes. "Not in MY world" the racist, close-minded bastard says, "Who's got a weapon?"

Absurd. Fucking absurd.

America needs to stop being so afraid. Because fear only produces vulnerability. And when you are vulnerable, you will do whatever the man in charge tells you to do. Why? Because the man in the white doctor coat knows more than you. So what if he's a pedophile and rapist.

There are other people in this world! We are no longer a superpower like we used to be and like so many before us were. So stop being so arrogant, stubborn, and just plain rude. I am NOT proud to be an American in THIS America. Take a lesson from England, Germany, France, and other former superpowers and just live your lives knowing that you are NOT the greatest person or country in the world and you DO NOT know the right and just way to do something. Because you aren't and you don't. Stop being afraid that the "others," that "they," are going to come into our cozy little home and change you. Whats so bad about change anyway if it does happen?

And for those that say we cannot face another chance of an attack like 9/11, you are just foolish. YOU CANNOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF TOMORROW! The chances of you dying in a car crash are far greater than you being killed by a terrorist. And I see no reduction in driving. (Except maybe from high gas prices. Thanks again Dubya.) So wake up and live your life people.

I'm awake!

For Those Who Can't Wait

http://www.canadahomes4sale.com/

I'm Tired

Senate Republicans Block Iraq Troop Pullout
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12055943

NPR.org, July 18, 2007 · Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Democrats to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by April.

After an all-night session, the 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"We have to get us out of a middle of a civil war," said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. A political solution must be found "so when we leave Iraq, we don't just send our children home, we don't have to send our grandchildren back."

As members cast their votes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hurried between private meetings with lawmakers in their Capitol Hill offices to make the administration's case for the war.

The Democratic proposal, by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), would have required the president to start bringing home troops within 120 days and complete the pullout by April 30, 2008.

Under the bill, an unspecified number of troops could remain behind to conduct a narrow set of missions: counterterrorism, protection of U.S. assets and the training of Iraqi security forces.

Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition to setting a deadline for troop withdrawals, with a few exceptions. Three Republicans — Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — had announced previously that they would support the measure.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is up for re-election next year, also voted to advance the bill.

Other GOP members, while uneasy about the war, said they could not support legislation that would force President Bush to adhere to a firm pullout date.

"The amendment tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who is also up for re-election next year.

The bill "is the wrong approach at the wrong time," he added.

Among lawmakers scheduled to meet with Rice were Biden, Smith, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and House Republican leader John Boehne of Ohio.

From Associated Press reports

I'm Awake!

A week or so ago, Melissa Etheridge did a great set at the Live Earth concert. She gave a scathing oration about the Bush administration and all the shit that can be attributed to them. (I have posted the YouTube videos on this blog.) I loved every second of it. Etheridge provoked everyone to tell people, "I'm awake!" in an effort to "scare the hell" out of the Bush administration.

And this week, perhaps more than I have in quite some time, I am unbelievably pissed off at Bush and his cronies. Does he not think anyone is listening anymore? Why are people just sitting back and letting Bush get away with criminal behavior? Are we all asleep or something? This is ridiculous.

I'M AWAKE!

We are hearing new reports about Al Qaeda being stronger than ever. Am I concerned? No. Do I know anyone that is? No. Why? Because no one cares what this administration has to say anymore. We are so sick of the lies and constant stubborness of Bush, we aren't paying attention anymore. No one cares. And I'm no expert and have done absolutely no research on the subject but I see no reason why another terrorist attack - here or abroad is not imminent. London just had one. There will be another one. Should I be afraid? Hell no. Bush has tried to scare us all into submissive robots willing to submit to whatever he wishes so he can violate the constitution and international human rights in order to spread "democracy," "freedom," and "Christianity" to a country that not only doesn't want it but doesn't need it.

I'M AWAKE!

And I'm pissed off. Bush also put the breaks on some bill that he says promotes "socialized medicine." Yeah do you know how horrible this place would be if we were able to have guarenteed free medical care. A hell hole thats what. An organized, healthy, comfortable hell hole. Now who would want that?

I'M AWAKE!

I can't do this anymore. We need something to happen here. And the really great thing is our congress is taking a month long vacation and the war will have to be put on hold until September. September! Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to let this thing keep going, and keep innocent people dying, and keep Al Qaeda growing stronger for another month! I hope you enjoy sipping your pina colada on a beach in the Carribean while millions suffer from this pointless war. You people make me sick.

I'M AWAKE! Are you?

Our Baby Enters the Argumentative Tween Years

Maliki: Iraq Able to Keep Security After U.S. Exit
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980818

Weekend Edition Saturday, July 14, 2007 · Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday's White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."

But he added that Iraqi forces are "still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation" to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks - "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

"These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges," he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation - a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report "objective," but added, "this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a "purely American vision."

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

"This embarrasses the government in front of its people," he said, calling the civilian deaths a "human rights violation."

From The Associated Press

Give It a Rest People!

Gates, Rice Try to Firm Support for War on Terror
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11957597

NPR.org, July 13, 2007 · The Bush administration on Friday launched a campaign to shore up support for the war on terror, a day after Congress handed the president a stinging rebuke by voting in favor of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said al-Qaida has become a "franchise organization" and that it was gaining a foothold in North Africa. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, echoed the administration's call for more time to see results from the troop surge in Iraq.

But soon after those comments were made, two of President Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate urged him to draft plans to begin a possible troop withdrawal by the end of the year.

The proposal from Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) would leave it up to the president to order any pullout of troops. But it underscores the growing bipartisan opposition in Congress to the increasingly unpopular war.

Friday, the administration sought to deflect attention away from the Iraqi government's struggles and toward the United States' need to fight terrorism — in Iraq and elsewhere.

At a news conference with Gen. William Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary Gates also told journalists that following the ouster of the Taliban in 2002, Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been forced to operate in "primitive conditions," which had precluded "the kind of centralized control they had before 9/11."

As a result, al-Qaida units around the world had been forced to work semiautonomously, while continuing to receive strategic guidance from Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants.

The attempt to clarify Washington's thinking on the terrorist network came a day after President Bush disputed media characterizations that a U.S. intelligence report indicated that al-Qaida was "stronger than ever" and the House voted for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning in April.

After the 223-201 vote for a Democratic proposal to force a U.S. troop withdrawal by next spring, Rice acknowledged in a round of television interviews that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has not achieved "as much progress as we would like."

The White House took the position that the House vote shows, "we have at least a cohesive position on our side for now," said the deputy press secretary.

"We are under no illusion, and we're very clear-eyed about the fact that we have a lot of work to do to talk to members of Congress, hear what they have to say," White House spokesperson Dana Perino said Friday.

Rice on Friday exhorted congressional critics of Iraq war policy Friday to give the Bush administration and the fledgling government in Baghdad until September to "make a coherent judgment of where we are."

"We shouldn't just dismiss as inconsequential the progress that they have made," she argued.

Rice echoed a more conciliatory tone adopted by the president in recent weeks, acknowledging what Bush on Thursday called "war fatigue" among the public.

"I understand people's concern. I understand people's impatience," she said. But Rice, who appeared on Fox News, ABC, CBS and CNN, said "we ought to stick" to the troop build up strategy that President Bush announced in January.

Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters via a video linkup from Iraq that "there will be consequences" if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon.

"With the support of the American people, I'm convinced that we can continue to make progress," he said.

"What troubles me about this debate - and it is important and it needs to be debated, for sure - is it seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq … and determine how we can reach that end state and how much time it will take," added Mixon, who commands troops in northern Iraq, including the violent Diyala province.

He enumerated several military successes - the number of militants captured, weapons caches seized, terrain retaken and so on. But he also acknowledged that much work remains.

Congressional Democrats, saying the war was draining U.S. assets from the fight against al-Qaida, moved Friday to highlight what they see as a major failure in Bush's war on terror: the inability to bring bin Laden to justice.

The Senate voted 87-1 in favor of doubling the reward to $50 million for information leading to his capture. The bill also would require regular classified reports from the administration explaining what steps it's taking to find bin Laden.