A bunch of articles...
Jun. 23rd, 2005 02:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Three from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
alternet
One on recruiting.
One on people who, apparently, think it is more ethical to adopt embryos than actual, living children.
One on Guantanamo.
The rest are random from my friends page, no credit for youse guys today, sorry.
The not-quite-secret ordination of a woman.
One on the close appearance of Mercury, Venus, and Saturn.
One on the Mafia... sorta.
One on a database being created by the Pentagon.
A blog entry on bellydancing.
Two articles from Salon.
One on the vote in Ohio.
About 5 million Ohio citizens went to the polls on Election Day in 2004 and 28 percent of them -- more than a million voters, many of them African-Americans -- experienced some kind of difficulty casting a ballot. This statistic, perhaps not surprising to people who have been poring over irregularities in November's presidential vote, was highlighted in a comprehensive new report on Ohio's election, commissioned by the Democratic National Committee.
The report, the product of a six-month investigation by a team of pollsters, political scientists, computer scientists and other elections experts, paints the most detailed picture so far of all that went wrong in the important swing state on Nov. 2, 2004. It's not a pretty picture.
According to the study, half of the state's African-American voters reported some problems at the polls on Election Day. On average, black voters waited in longer lines than white voters; they were asked to provide identification more often than white voters; they were required to vote on "provisional ballots" more often (and their provisional ballots were counted less often); and they were intimidated at the polls more often than white voters. The DNC found that 16 percent of African-American voters felt intimidated at the polls; some reported hearing that "police would be at the polls to arrest people who had outstanding child support or car payments." Overall, the problems African-Americans saw caused them to question the integrity of the election. While 77 percent of white voters were "very confident" that their votes had been counted, only 19 percent of black voters felt the same way.
"The results show that our election system failed the citizens of Ohio in 2004, and in particular failed African-Americans, new registrants, younger voters and voters in places using touch-screen machines," Howard Dean, the DNC chairman, said at a press conference unveiling the report. Democrats were careful to add that their report did not suggest that John Kerry actually won the race. There was a similarity, the report said, in the pattern of votes cast for Kerry in 2004 and the votes cast for losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Timothy Hagan in 2002. The pattern, the report declared, provided "strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush."
Kerry himself said in a statement that he sees the report as a sign that the country needs to reform its voting practices. "We must insist on reform at every level to stop voter suppression, strengthen voting rights and secure funding for election officials to purchase reliable and verifiable voting machines so that the discrepancies the voting rights team found in Ohio do not occur again," Kerry said.
Ohio's elections officials, though, dismissed the report as inaccurate and politically motivated. Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's Republican secretary of state, criticized several specific findings in the report, and he insisted that many voters, including many African-American voters, voted without any difficulty last year. LoParo suggested that the report's only aim was to embarrass his boss, who is running for governor in 2006. "I think it's a partisan assault on an elected political leader who is the likely 2006 gubernatorial standard bearer in this state," LoParo said of the report.
According to the DNC report, the most pernicious problem Ohioans faced on Election Day was long lines at the polls. Nearly a quarter of the voters in the state waited at least 20 minutes to vote, and 8 percent waited in line for more than an hour. The numbers varied greatly by race. African-Americans waited an average of 52 minutes to vote; the average for white voters was less than 20 minutes.
Many factors contributed to the long lines, including the number of machines available to voters at each precinct, and the specific type of voting technology used in those precincts. Areas that used electronic touch-screen machines -- which have long been criticized because they don't produce an auditable paper trail -- saw the longest wait times. In Franklin County, which includes the city of Columbus and which used touch-screen machines, 74 percent of voters reported waiting more than 20 minutes to vote.
Walter Mebane, a Cornell political scientist who contributed to the report, found that precincts that experienced long lines also saw a reduction in expected voter turnout, as some voters looked at the long lines and decided not to vote. Mebane calculated that the scarcity of machines caused "roughly a 2 to 3 percent reduction" in turnout.
The DNC did not find evidence of a systematic effort to limit the number of voting machines in African-American areas, a charge that many critics of Ohio's procedures have leveled at officials in the state. Mebane said that across the state, the number of machines per registered voter didn't vary greatly by race -- except in one place, Franklin County. There, Mebane explained, "as the proportion of African-Americans in the precinct increased, the expected number of voting machines per registered voter decreased."
When asked about this finding, LoParo of the secretary of state's office pointed out that voting machine distribution plans were drawn up by county elections officials, not by the secretary of state. He noted that the chairman of Franklin County's Board of Elections is an African-American Democrat, William Anthony. Anthony has denied intentionally allocating voting machines in his county in a way that disenfranchised black voters. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" Anthony told the Columbus Dispatch in November. "I've fought my whole life for people's right to vote."
LoParo also disagreed with the DNC's conclusion that procedures in the state reduced voter turnout among African-Americans. He noted that a report by the U.S. Census Bureau released in March found that 67 percent of all blacks eligible to vote in Ohio cast a ballot in 2004, compared with only 55 percent in 2000.
But as the report stressed, many minority voters in the nation's pivotal swing state felt their votes were ignored. And that, Kerry said, amounts to surefire cause for reform. "Our democracy is only as strong as the people's faith that their voice counts and their votes will be counted," he said.
One on Republicans criticizing the war.
There is an unmistakable sound in Washington as politicians gear up for midterm elections: Amid plummeting public support for the war in Iraq, a growing chorus of congressional voices is opposing the Bush administration's policy.
Alarmingly for President Bush, the dissent isn't coming just from Democrats. Leading Republicans are increasingly expressing their frustration with the war effort -- and this may only be the beginning of Bush's problems within GOP ranks as Republicans assess whether they'll run as allies or critics of Bush's policy in 2006.
The Bush administration, publicly at least, still insists the war in Iraq is proceeding as planned -- even as U.S. casualties continue to mount and the insurgency shows no indications of letting up. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that "the facts on the ground show that the Iraqi people are making important progress on the political front to build a free and democratic future." The next day, McClellan said that success in Iraq was critical because "wherever you stood before the decision to go into Iraq, I think we can all recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism."
But increasingly, key Republicans do not see the same Iraq Bush sees, even if the GOP leadership remains lockstep behind the commander in chief. Over the weekend, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." On Sunday, Sen. John McCain was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether Vice President Cheney's comments last week that Iraq is in the "last throes" of the insurgency were correct. "No," McCain tersely replied.
That frank sentiment comes on the heels of a well-publicized reversal from an early outspoken supporter of the war, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who coined the term "freedom fries" to express his outrage with France. Perhaps more than many of his colleagues, Jones faces potential electoral fallout from the war in Iraq: He has three major military bases in his district at the eastern end of the state, and counts tens of thousands of veterans among his constituency.
Few Republicans seem prepared to follow Jones in a call for troop withdrawal. Yet their alternative is equally problematic. If Republicans maintain their support for President Bush, they will be hard-pressed to convince voters, as support for the war nears lows of 40 percent, that the war was worth the cost in lives as well as the hundreds of billions in U.S. tax dollars. And with a stalled domestic legislative agenda added to the mix, this could all add up to electoral trouble for Republicans.
"You are looking at a political problem right now," said the chief of staff of a Republican House member on the International Relations Committee, who spoke on background in order to be candid. "Iraq is conceivably a very big problem. It's one of the top three or four issues and it's not going well; the casualties are mounting and it is costing a lot of money, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't there."
But the problems go beyond Iraq, the advisor said. "There has been no real good news in anything the Congress has done this year, and the polls are showing dissatisfaction with the president. And Republicans are starting to worry about their reelection."
And with good reason. With ethics questions dogging House members, most prominently GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the president's plan for Social Security reform not gaining momentum, and his choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations stalled in the Senate -- not to mention anemic poll numbers -- Republicans are wondering what they'll run on next year. "There is no piece of bright news that you can build a campaign around," the GOP advisor said. The lack of "bright news" gives Republicans an opening to criticize the administration, or may force them to, on Iraq and other issues, with a great deal less political risk than in 2002.
"There comes a point where the leverage of the administration in the second term becomes mighty small," the chief of staff said, "and they will go out and display their own feelings more openly."
Democrats are already doing just that, becoming progressively more vocal in their demands that President Bush alter his strategy in Iraq and define his objectives to the American people. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware called on Tuesday for Bush to set "clear benchmarks and goals" that speak to "security, governance and politics, reconstruction and burden sharing," and to "report on the progress toward these goals every month in public testimony."
In arguably the most detailed address yet by a leading member of Congress on an alternative strategy in Iraq, Biden also chided Bush for "misleading statements and premature declarations of victory" in the war effort, stating that Bush was remiss for arguing that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and warning that unless the administration's strategy is amended, Iraq could fall into civil war.
Yet Democrats vocal against the war also remain in a tenuous political position. The party is trying to walk a fine line: voicing dissent on the policy while not appearing to politically capitalize on U.S. casualties. To do this, Democrats consistently reaffirm their support for U.S. soldiers as a qualification to any criticism of the war effort.
But last week, demonstrating how Republicans intend to target antiwar Democrats, several in the GOP criticized a statement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that the war in Iraq was a "grotesque mistake." Across the aisle, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said, "Leader Pelosi and the Democratic leadership should support our troops instead of spreading inflammatory statements."
Inflammatory or not, Pelosi's comments were exactly what antiwar Democrats seek from their leadership. Seconding Pelosi, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who sits on the House Committee on International Relations, said in an interview that, "this is a war that is ongoing, for an unspecified time, with unspecified amount of money."
While most congressional Democrats, including Biden, agree with the vast majority of Republicans that the military must continue to engage in Iraq -- that scheduling the withdrawal of U.S. troops would empower the insurgency and destabilize the region -- about 40 House Democrats have formed an "Out of Iraq" caucus calling for a set U.S. troop withdrawal date.
And herein lies another political risk for Democrats. Even if they can largely agree in their opposition to Bush's policy, they haven't reached consensus on how it should be fixed. So while Democrats could gain some political traction with rising public opposition to the war, there is a question of whether their inability to join in calling for a solution could lead to party in-fighting and undermine their message.
To Lee, the California Democrat who is a member of the "Out of Iraq" caucus, Biden's request for a policy shift was "not nearly enough." Lee, who originally opposed the war, added: "We are not saying cut and run, or withdraw tomorrow, but we are saying as soon as possible. You know the president should develop a plan to begin to get our young men and women home."
Much of the caucus has thrown its support behind a House resolution sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats that calls for the removal of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin by October 2006. One of the Republican sponsors of the resolution was Rep. Walter Jones.
With the 2006 midterm elections on the horizon, Democratic congressional leaders held a rare meeting on Wednesday hoping to further delineate their position on the war in Iraq. Between Biden's calls for loyal opposition and Lee's demands for total opposition, the Democratic Party remains far from united politically on the best strategy to win the peace. Lee, herself, was quick to emphasize that "you can't view the loss of life in a war in the context of elections." But of course, both parties are doing just that.
A rising star among Democrats, Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., recently launched his Senate campaign with a television advertisement calling for U.S. military forces to return home. "Let's work hard to bring them home soon, and with honor, and make them as proud of us as we are of them," Ford says in the ad, marking the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. Ford's advertisement may serve as a harbinger of some campaigns in which Democrats call for troops to return home, especially in the South where support for the military runs deep but so do the scars from ongoing casualties.
Polls suggest Americans are more and more receptive to this message. Two CNN/USA Today/Gallup surveys in June found that for the first time since the onset of hostilities in Iraq, a majority of Americans are against the war. In early June, 56 percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting. The latest mid-month survey found opposition to the war had increased to 59 percent. An equal percentage of Americans now also support a partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Bush is tentatively expected to address the American people on Iraq next Tuesday, but the White House has not said if it will be during prime time. Tuesday marks the first anniversary of the U.S.-led coalition's transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government. Earlier this week, standing beside two European leaders, Bush did not speak to public disapproval of the war effort.
"The report from the field is that while it's tough, more and more Iraqis are becoming battle-hardened and trained to defend themselves," Bush said on Monday, the same day that 32 Iraqis died in Iraq, including 13 Iraqi police officers. "And that's exactly the strategy that's going to work."
The president is scheduled to join 80 other world leaders in Brussels this week at a conference on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. As it commenced, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari called on the international community to honor billions of dollars in pledged aid. Speaking about the Brussels meeting, Biden urged Bush to also accept offers from Egypt, Jordan and France to train moderate numbers of Iraqi forces.
Biden said the White House should create an "accurate measure of the basic quality of life and the delivery of essential services," in order to demonstrably gauge Iraqi sentiment, stating there was a "direct correlation" between popular Iraqi discontent and instability in the country. The Delaware senator added that an "improvement" in Iraqi "standard of living" must be understood as necessary to the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to put down the insurgency. Biden added that he continues to "believe we can still succeed in Iraq" and that "failure would be a disaster."
But publicly, failure is far from the minds of the Republican leadership. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, DeLay was resolute that the situation in Iraq was improving and blamed the media for misconstruing the war.
"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," the Texan told reporters. "And if you took that as the image of what is a great city that has an incredible quality of life and an incredible economy, it's amazing to me. Go to Iraq. And see what's actually happening there." DeLay proceeded to insist, "Everybody that comes from Iraq is amazed at the difference of what they see on the ground and what they see on the television set."
Currently, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq has exceeded 1,700, with more than 12,000 wounded. The civilian death toll is estimated to be far greater than that of U.S. forces, possibly numbering in the tens of thousands.
Having recently returned from his fifth trip to Iraq, Biden criticized comments like DeLay's, which echo those of the Bush administration. "The disconnect between the administration's rhetoric and the reality on the ground has opened not just a credibility gap, but a credibility chasm," he said. "Standing right in the middle of that chasm are 139,000 American troops."
Though Biden is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, his address could also be taken as one of the first forays into the 2008 presidential campaign. Hoping to deflect accusations of partisanship, Biden pledged on Tuesday not to criticize Bush if the president modifies his policy on the war.
But Biden warned that should the president maintain his course, Iraq may fall into further turmoil and the United States may be forced to withdraw U.S. troops, while supporting Shiite and Kurdish efforts to defeat the insurgency, much of which is supported by the Sunni minority. "Our bottom-line national security interest," he said, is "preventing a new springboard for terrorism."
alternetOne on recruiting.
One on people who, apparently, think it is more ethical to adopt embryos than actual, living children.
One on Guantanamo.
The rest are random from my friends page, no credit for youse guys today, sorry.
The not-quite-secret ordination of a woman.
One on the close appearance of Mercury, Venus, and Saturn.
One on the Mafia... sorta.
One on a database being created by the Pentagon.
A blog entry on bellydancing.
Two articles from Salon.
One on the vote in Ohio.
About 5 million Ohio citizens went to the polls on Election Day in 2004 and 28 percent of them -- more than a million voters, many of them African-Americans -- experienced some kind of difficulty casting a ballot. This statistic, perhaps not surprising to people who have been poring over irregularities in November's presidential vote, was highlighted in a comprehensive new report on Ohio's election, commissioned by the Democratic National Committee.
The report, the product of a six-month investigation by a team of pollsters, political scientists, computer scientists and other elections experts, paints the most detailed picture so far of all that went wrong in the important swing state on Nov. 2, 2004. It's not a pretty picture.
According to the study, half of the state's African-American voters reported some problems at the polls on Election Day. On average, black voters waited in longer lines than white voters; they were asked to provide identification more often than white voters; they were required to vote on "provisional ballots" more often (and their provisional ballots were counted less often); and they were intimidated at the polls more often than white voters. The DNC found that 16 percent of African-American voters felt intimidated at the polls; some reported hearing that "police would be at the polls to arrest people who had outstanding child support or car payments." Overall, the problems African-Americans saw caused them to question the integrity of the election. While 77 percent of white voters were "very confident" that their votes had been counted, only 19 percent of black voters felt the same way.
"The results show that our election system failed the citizens of Ohio in 2004, and in particular failed African-Americans, new registrants, younger voters and voters in places using touch-screen machines," Howard Dean, the DNC chairman, said at a press conference unveiling the report. Democrats were careful to add that their report did not suggest that John Kerry actually won the race. There was a similarity, the report said, in the pattern of votes cast for Kerry in 2004 and the votes cast for losing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Timothy Hagan in 2002. The pattern, the report declared, provided "strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush."
Kerry himself said in a statement that he sees the report as a sign that the country needs to reform its voting practices. "We must insist on reform at every level to stop voter suppression, strengthen voting rights and secure funding for election officials to purchase reliable and verifiable voting machines so that the discrepancies the voting rights team found in Ohio do not occur again," Kerry said.
Ohio's elections officials, though, dismissed the report as inaccurate and politically motivated. Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's Republican secretary of state, criticized several specific findings in the report, and he insisted that many voters, including many African-American voters, voted without any difficulty last year. LoParo suggested that the report's only aim was to embarrass his boss, who is running for governor in 2006. "I think it's a partisan assault on an elected political leader who is the likely 2006 gubernatorial standard bearer in this state," LoParo said of the report.
According to the DNC report, the most pernicious problem Ohioans faced on Election Day was long lines at the polls. Nearly a quarter of the voters in the state waited at least 20 minutes to vote, and 8 percent waited in line for more than an hour. The numbers varied greatly by race. African-Americans waited an average of 52 minutes to vote; the average for white voters was less than 20 minutes.
Many factors contributed to the long lines, including the number of machines available to voters at each precinct, and the specific type of voting technology used in those precincts. Areas that used electronic touch-screen machines -- which have long been criticized because they don't produce an auditable paper trail -- saw the longest wait times. In Franklin County, which includes the city of Columbus and which used touch-screen machines, 74 percent of voters reported waiting more than 20 minutes to vote.
Walter Mebane, a Cornell political scientist who contributed to the report, found that precincts that experienced long lines also saw a reduction in expected voter turnout, as some voters looked at the long lines and decided not to vote. Mebane calculated that the scarcity of machines caused "roughly a 2 to 3 percent reduction" in turnout.
The DNC did not find evidence of a systematic effort to limit the number of voting machines in African-American areas, a charge that many critics of Ohio's procedures have leveled at officials in the state. Mebane said that across the state, the number of machines per registered voter didn't vary greatly by race -- except in one place, Franklin County. There, Mebane explained, "as the proportion of African-Americans in the precinct increased, the expected number of voting machines per registered voter decreased."
When asked about this finding, LoParo of the secretary of state's office pointed out that voting machine distribution plans were drawn up by county elections officials, not by the secretary of state. He noted that the chairman of Franklin County's Board of Elections is an African-American Democrat, William Anthony. Anthony has denied intentionally allocating voting machines in his county in a way that disenfranchised black voters. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" Anthony told the Columbus Dispatch in November. "I've fought my whole life for people's right to vote."
LoParo also disagreed with the DNC's conclusion that procedures in the state reduced voter turnout among African-Americans. He noted that a report by the U.S. Census Bureau released in March found that 67 percent of all blacks eligible to vote in Ohio cast a ballot in 2004, compared with only 55 percent in 2000.
But as the report stressed, many minority voters in the nation's pivotal swing state felt their votes were ignored. And that, Kerry said, amounts to surefire cause for reform. "Our democracy is only as strong as the people's faith that their voice counts and their votes will be counted," he said.
One on Republicans criticizing the war.
There is an unmistakable sound in Washington as politicians gear up for midterm elections: Amid plummeting public support for the war in Iraq, a growing chorus of congressional voices is opposing the Bush administration's policy.
Alarmingly for President Bush, the dissent isn't coming just from Democrats. Leading Republicans are increasingly expressing their frustration with the war effort -- and this may only be the beginning of Bush's problems within GOP ranks as Republicans assess whether they'll run as allies or critics of Bush's policy in 2006.
The Bush administration, publicly at least, still insists the war in Iraq is proceeding as planned -- even as U.S. casualties continue to mount and the insurgency shows no indications of letting up. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that "the facts on the ground show that the Iraqi people are making important progress on the political front to build a free and democratic future." The next day, McClellan said that success in Iraq was critical because "wherever you stood before the decision to go into Iraq, I think we can all recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism."
But increasingly, key Republicans do not see the same Iraq Bush sees, even if the GOP leadership remains lockstep behind the commander in chief. Over the weekend, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." On Sunday, Sen. John McCain was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether Vice President Cheney's comments last week that Iraq is in the "last throes" of the insurgency were correct. "No," McCain tersely replied.
That frank sentiment comes on the heels of a well-publicized reversal from an early outspoken supporter of the war, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who coined the term "freedom fries" to express his outrage with France. Perhaps more than many of his colleagues, Jones faces potential electoral fallout from the war in Iraq: He has three major military bases in his district at the eastern end of the state, and counts tens of thousands of veterans among his constituency.
Few Republicans seem prepared to follow Jones in a call for troop withdrawal. Yet their alternative is equally problematic. If Republicans maintain their support for President Bush, they will be hard-pressed to convince voters, as support for the war nears lows of 40 percent, that the war was worth the cost in lives as well as the hundreds of billions in U.S. tax dollars. And with a stalled domestic legislative agenda added to the mix, this could all add up to electoral trouble for Republicans.
"You are looking at a political problem right now," said the chief of staff of a Republican House member on the International Relations Committee, who spoke on background in order to be candid. "Iraq is conceivably a very big problem. It's one of the top three or four issues and it's not going well; the casualties are mounting and it is costing a lot of money, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't there."
But the problems go beyond Iraq, the advisor said. "There has been no real good news in anything the Congress has done this year, and the polls are showing dissatisfaction with the president. And Republicans are starting to worry about their reelection."
And with good reason. With ethics questions dogging House members, most prominently GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the president's plan for Social Security reform not gaining momentum, and his choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations stalled in the Senate -- not to mention anemic poll numbers -- Republicans are wondering what they'll run on next year. "There is no piece of bright news that you can build a campaign around," the GOP advisor said. The lack of "bright news" gives Republicans an opening to criticize the administration, or may force them to, on Iraq and other issues, with a great deal less political risk than in 2002.
"There comes a point where the leverage of the administration in the second term becomes mighty small," the chief of staff said, "and they will go out and display their own feelings more openly."
Democrats are already doing just that, becoming progressively more vocal in their demands that President Bush alter his strategy in Iraq and define his objectives to the American people. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware called on Tuesday for Bush to set "clear benchmarks and goals" that speak to "security, governance and politics, reconstruction and burden sharing," and to "report on the progress toward these goals every month in public testimony."
In arguably the most detailed address yet by a leading member of Congress on an alternative strategy in Iraq, Biden also chided Bush for "misleading statements and premature declarations of victory" in the war effort, stating that Bush was remiss for arguing that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and warning that unless the administration's strategy is amended, Iraq could fall into civil war.
Yet Democrats vocal against the war also remain in a tenuous political position. The party is trying to walk a fine line: voicing dissent on the policy while not appearing to politically capitalize on U.S. casualties. To do this, Democrats consistently reaffirm their support for U.S. soldiers as a qualification to any criticism of the war effort.
But last week, demonstrating how Republicans intend to target antiwar Democrats, several in the GOP criticized a statement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that the war in Iraq was a "grotesque mistake." Across the aisle, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said, "Leader Pelosi and the Democratic leadership should support our troops instead of spreading inflammatory statements."
Inflammatory or not, Pelosi's comments were exactly what antiwar Democrats seek from their leadership. Seconding Pelosi, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who sits on the House Committee on International Relations, said in an interview that, "this is a war that is ongoing, for an unspecified time, with unspecified amount of money."
While most congressional Democrats, including Biden, agree with the vast majority of Republicans that the military must continue to engage in Iraq -- that scheduling the withdrawal of U.S. troops would empower the insurgency and destabilize the region -- about 40 House Democrats have formed an "Out of Iraq" caucus calling for a set U.S. troop withdrawal date.
And herein lies another political risk for Democrats. Even if they can largely agree in their opposition to Bush's policy, they haven't reached consensus on how it should be fixed. So while Democrats could gain some political traction with rising public opposition to the war, there is a question of whether their inability to join in calling for a solution could lead to party in-fighting and undermine their message.
To Lee, the California Democrat who is a member of the "Out of Iraq" caucus, Biden's request for a policy shift was "not nearly enough." Lee, who originally opposed the war, added: "We are not saying cut and run, or withdraw tomorrow, but we are saying as soon as possible. You know the president should develop a plan to begin to get our young men and women home."
Much of the caucus has thrown its support behind a House resolution sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats that calls for the removal of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin by October 2006. One of the Republican sponsors of the resolution was Rep. Walter Jones.
With the 2006 midterm elections on the horizon, Democratic congressional leaders held a rare meeting on Wednesday hoping to further delineate their position on the war in Iraq. Between Biden's calls for loyal opposition and Lee's demands for total opposition, the Democratic Party remains far from united politically on the best strategy to win the peace. Lee, herself, was quick to emphasize that "you can't view the loss of life in a war in the context of elections." But of course, both parties are doing just that.
A rising star among Democrats, Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., recently launched his Senate campaign with a television advertisement calling for U.S. military forces to return home. "Let's work hard to bring them home soon, and with honor, and make them as proud of us as we are of them," Ford says in the ad, marking the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. Ford's advertisement may serve as a harbinger of some campaigns in which Democrats call for troops to return home, especially in the South where support for the military runs deep but so do the scars from ongoing casualties.
Polls suggest Americans are more and more receptive to this message. Two CNN/USA Today/Gallup surveys in June found that for the first time since the onset of hostilities in Iraq, a majority of Americans are against the war. In early June, 56 percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting. The latest mid-month survey found opposition to the war had increased to 59 percent. An equal percentage of Americans now also support a partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Bush is tentatively expected to address the American people on Iraq next Tuesday, but the White House has not said if it will be during prime time. Tuesday marks the first anniversary of the U.S.-led coalition's transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government. Earlier this week, standing beside two European leaders, Bush did not speak to public disapproval of the war effort.
"The report from the field is that while it's tough, more and more Iraqis are becoming battle-hardened and trained to defend themselves," Bush said on Monday, the same day that 32 Iraqis died in Iraq, including 13 Iraqi police officers. "And that's exactly the strategy that's going to work."
The president is scheduled to join 80 other world leaders in Brussels this week at a conference on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. As it commenced, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari called on the international community to honor billions of dollars in pledged aid. Speaking about the Brussels meeting, Biden urged Bush to also accept offers from Egypt, Jordan and France to train moderate numbers of Iraqi forces.
Biden said the White House should create an "accurate measure of the basic quality of life and the delivery of essential services," in order to demonstrably gauge Iraqi sentiment, stating there was a "direct correlation" between popular Iraqi discontent and instability in the country. The Delaware senator added that an "improvement" in Iraqi "standard of living" must be understood as necessary to the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to put down the insurgency. Biden added that he continues to "believe we can still succeed in Iraq" and that "failure would be a disaster."
But publicly, failure is far from the minds of the Republican leadership. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, DeLay was resolute that the situation in Iraq was improving and blamed the media for misconstruing the war.
"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," the Texan told reporters. "And if you took that as the image of what is a great city that has an incredible quality of life and an incredible economy, it's amazing to me. Go to Iraq. And see what's actually happening there." DeLay proceeded to insist, "Everybody that comes from Iraq is amazed at the difference of what they see on the ground and what they see on the television set."
Currently, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq has exceeded 1,700, with more than 12,000 wounded. The civilian death toll is estimated to be far greater than that of U.S. forces, possibly numbering in the tens of thousands.
Having recently returned from his fifth trip to Iraq, Biden criticized comments like DeLay's, which echo those of the Bush administration. "The disconnect between the administration's rhetoric and the reality on the ground has opened not just a credibility gap, but a credibility chasm," he said. "Standing right in the middle of that chasm are 139,000 American troops."
Though Biden is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, his address could also be taken as one of the first forays into the 2008 presidential campaign. Hoping to deflect accusations of partisanship, Biden pledged on Tuesday not to criticize Bush if the president modifies his policy on the war.
But Biden warned that should the president maintain his course, Iraq may fall into further turmoil and the United States may be forced to withdraw U.S. troops, while supporting Shiite and Kurdish efforts to defeat the insurgency, much of which is supported by the Sunni minority. "Our bottom-line national security interest," he said, is "preventing a new springboard for terrorism."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:19 am (UTC)I think it is a good idea and I like when people follow through with their beliefs, instead of just standing by and doing nothing useful.
They think destroying the embryos are wrong, and are doing something about it. I think that is to be applauded, instead of just wringing their hands and doing nothing. They're putting their money where their mouth is -- and too often people complain that the pro-life people aren't willing to do that.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:42 am (UTC)BTW I am on a very conservative women's mailing list, and the number of children they foster and adopt amazes me. I'm pro choice, don't get me wrong, but they're honestly walking the talk, quite a few of them, and that impresses me. I see this as an extention to the extensive work some of the very religious do to deal with unwanted pregnancies (and embryos).
And of course I also think that we should use those embryos for stem cell research if no one is adopting them. What a waste to just destroy them.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:47 am (UTC)2. People who follow their convictions and actually adopt kids instead of just saying "don't abort" is good. Wonderful. I have no complaints about them whatsoever. Hey, I think adoption in general is great and wonderful. I don't want kids because I don't think I'm anywhere near responsible enough to take care of children over a lifetime. If I did, though, I'd adopt. (However, cost-benefit analysis, I can't take care of kids over a lifetime.)
3. Agreed, definitely. (When it comes to it, I'm not the hugest fan of fertility treatments, because of the number of children who need homes, and overpopulation, and so on. I don't talk about it, though. If I heard a friend of mine was pregnant via artificial assistance, I'd be honestly happy for them. This was random.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 01:57 pm (UTC)Although if my life had gone the way I wanted it to, I'd probably have had 2 or 3 children and adopted a child. But it'd depend on if I could have some say over the child I adopted. I'd want to adopt someone in the 3-5 year range who I could make sure I could bond with and feel I could be a good parent to. I've met kids of other people's who I knew I could raise well, but an average child would do better with a more average parent.
The recruitment stuff though reminds me of why I would recommend that people not join the US military even if we weren't in a horrible war. The US military considers CFS to not exist. Not being able to function because of CFS is illegal. But even worse than that, they view mononucleosis the same way. You can even test for mono. But having mono and letting it affect your ability to perform is considered malingering and illegal. How can you join an organization that will turn on you if you happen to catch the wrong bug?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:19 am (UTC)I think it is a good idea and I like when people follow through with their beliefs, instead of just standing by and doing nothing useful.
They think destroying the embryos are wrong, and are doing something about it. I think that is to be applauded, instead of just wringing their hands and doing nothing. They're putting their money where their mouth is -- and too often people complain that the pro-life people aren't willing to do that.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:42 am (UTC)BTW I am on a very conservative women's mailing list, and the number of children they foster and adopt amazes me. I'm pro choice, don't get me wrong, but they're honestly walking the talk, quite a few of them, and that impresses me. I see this as an extention to the extensive work some of the very religious do to deal with unwanted pregnancies (and embryos).
And of course I also think that we should use those embryos for stem cell research if no one is adopting them. What a waste to just destroy them.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:47 am (UTC)2. People who follow their convictions and actually adopt kids instead of just saying "don't abort" is good. Wonderful. I have no complaints about them whatsoever. Hey, I think adoption in general is great and wonderful. I don't want kids because I don't think I'm anywhere near responsible enough to take care of children over a lifetime. If I did, though, I'd adopt. (However, cost-benefit analysis, I can't take care of kids over a lifetime.)
3. Agreed, definitely. (When it comes to it, I'm not the hugest fan of fertility treatments, because of the number of children who need homes, and overpopulation, and so on. I don't talk about it, though. If I heard a friend of mine was pregnant via artificial assistance, I'd be honestly happy for them. This was random.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 01:57 pm (UTC)Although if my life had gone the way I wanted it to, I'd probably have had 2 or 3 children and adopted a child. But it'd depend on if I could have some say over the child I adopted. I'd want to adopt someone in the 3-5 year range who I could make sure I could bond with and feel I could be a good parent to. I've met kids of other people's who I knew I could raise well, but an average child would do better with a more average parent.
The recruitment stuff though reminds me of why I would recommend that people not join the US military even if we weren't in a horrible war. The US military considers CFS to not exist. Not being able to function because of CFS is illegal. But even worse than that, they view mononucleosis the same way. You can even test for mono. But having mono and letting it affect your ability to perform is considered malingering and illegal. How can you join an organization that will turn on you if you happen to catch the wrong bug?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 02:54 pm (UTC)