President Bush and the supporters of his war in Iraq have always wanted to give the impression that radical Muslims were involved with Iraq at the time of 9/11/01, and therefore Iraq was a suitable target post 9/11.
He seems to have changed his tune with today’s speech on the war on terror. "Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq."
This time he seems to have it right. As long as Saddam was in charge, al-Qaeda was not in Iraq to any great extent. But now that there is a civil war in Iraq, the radicals see their chance to move in. So yes, Mr. President, because of your war the radicals have now set their sights on Iraq.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
Reaction Mixed to Miers Court Nomination
Today President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, to replace retiring U. S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Miers, 60, has never served as a judge on any level and lacks a record of opinions that might reveal how she would serve on the U. S. Supreme Court. About the only thing known about her is that she is a hard worker and a Bush confidante.
Before her nomination was announced this morning, liberals had been warning that the nomination of a conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas would bring about strong opposition in the Senate, provoking a very contentious committee and floor fight and possibly a filibuster.
Conservative groups, on the other hand, have worried about the opposite. They point out that they were responsible for the election of President Bush and that there support was based, in large part, on the belief that he would nominate conservative justices who would likely vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, the decision that kept abortion legal in all states.
To the nomination of a lawyer with no judicial experience, reaction is mixed.
Both Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada find advantages in the fact that Miers has not been a judge.
According to Hatch, “Harriett Miers will bring diversity and depth to the Court,” “She has broad professional experience that will provide a fresh perspective from outside the insular walls of the judiciary.”
Reid seemed to agree: "The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court."
Added Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: "[W]hen I choose judges In New York, I look for practical experience. And so the fact that she hasn't been a judge before, to me is actually a positive, not a negative."
However, the downside of the lack of judicial experience is the lack of a record on which to judge her judicial temperament and ideology.
"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Miers' judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Many Supreme Court justices had no prior experience: According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 came from within the president's administration, not from the judicial branch.
Among the other justices for whom the high court bench was their first judgeship were: Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis.
Conservative reaction is mixed:
Some conservatives are worried that Ms. Miers has not shown that she will support their views when on the bench.
Concerned Women for America released a statement saying it was taking a "wait and see" approach.
"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue of CWA. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."
Family Research Council. President Tony Perkins: "President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers and the absence of a record on the bench give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold.
Public Advocate president, Eugene Delgaudio was clear in his opposition: "The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this president's father.
"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate, and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."
Operation Rescue also opposes Miers. "We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States," said the group’s president, Troy Newman.
"President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia. We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?"
Other conservative groups favor Miers.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.
"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.
"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.
"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues." (We don’t know how Fr. Pavone would feel about nominees whose personal views supported the right to abortion.)
According to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative law group:
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor," said Sekulow in a statement. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical.
"Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional, and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."
Sekulow said his organization is ready to mount a campaign in support of Miers, similar to their support of John Roberts during his confirmation process as Chief Justice.
"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an associate justice of the Supreme Court."
Sekulow may claim to know the intentions of liberals. However, their reaction is also mixed.
"I see no negatives at this stage in Harriet Miers. ... What her values are and where she will stand on this court remains to be seen." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
"America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. ... Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." _ Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment." _ Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way.
At this point we know very little about Miers. Her nomination and confirmation debate will probably be more important than those for John Roberts, who replaced Chief Justice William Rehquinst. Rehquinst was clearly one of the most conservative members of the court; it is unlikely that his replacement by Roberts could move the court any more to the right. However, Miers is replacing the more moderate, and often swing vote, of Sandra Day O’Conner. If Miers turns out to be a Scalia-Thomas type conservative, her confirmation would swing the court to the right.
Miers, 60, has never served as a judge on any level and lacks a record of opinions that might reveal how she would serve on the U. S. Supreme Court. About the only thing known about her is that she is a hard worker and a Bush confidante.
Before her nomination was announced this morning, liberals had been warning that the nomination of a conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas would bring about strong opposition in the Senate, provoking a very contentious committee and floor fight and possibly a filibuster.
Conservative groups, on the other hand, have worried about the opposite. They point out that they were responsible for the election of President Bush and that there support was based, in large part, on the belief that he would nominate conservative justices who would likely vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, the decision that kept abortion legal in all states.
To the nomination of a lawyer with no judicial experience, reaction is mixed.
Both Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada find advantages in the fact that Miers has not been a judge.
According to Hatch, “Harriett Miers will bring diversity and depth to the Court,” “She has broad professional experience that will provide a fresh perspective from outside the insular walls of the judiciary.”
Reid seemed to agree: "The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court."
Added Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: "[W]hen I choose judges In New York, I look for practical experience. And so the fact that she hasn't been a judge before, to me is actually a positive, not a negative."
However, the downside of the lack of judicial experience is the lack of a record on which to judge her judicial temperament and ideology.
"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Miers' judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Many Supreme Court justices had no prior experience: According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 came from within the president's administration, not from the judicial branch.
Among the other justices for whom the high court bench was their first judgeship were: Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis.
Conservative reaction is mixed:
Some conservatives are worried that Ms. Miers has not shown that she will support their views when on the bench.
Concerned Women for America released a statement saying it was taking a "wait and see" approach.
"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue of CWA. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."
Family Research Council. President Tony Perkins: "President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers and the absence of a record on the bench give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold.
Public Advocate president, Eugene Delgaudio was clear in his opposition: "The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this president's father.
"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate, and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."
Operation Rescue also opposes Miers. "We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States," said the group’s president, Troy Newman.
"President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia. We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?"
Other conservative groups favor Miers.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.
"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.
"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.
"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues." (We don’t know how Fr. Pavone would feel about nominees whose personal views supported the right to abortion.)
According to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative law group:
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor," said Sekulow in a statement. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical.
"Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional, and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."
Sekulow said his organization is ready to mount a campaign in support of Miers, similar to their support of John Roberts during his confirmation process as Chief Justice.
"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an associate justice of the Supreme Court."
Sekulow may claim to know the intentions of liberals. However, their reaction is also mixed.
"I see no negatives at this stage in Harriet Miers. ... What her values are and where she will stand on this court remains to be seen." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
"America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. ... Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." _ Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment." _ Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way.
At this point we know very little about Miers. Her nomination and confirmation debate will probably be more important than those for John Roberts, who replaced Chief Justice William Rehquinst. Rehquinst was clearly one of the most conservative members of the court; it is unlikely that his replacement by Roberts could move the court any more to the right. However, Miers is replacing the more moderate, and often swing vote, of Sandra Day O’Conner. If Miers turns out to be a Scalia-Thomas type conservative, her confirmation would swing the court to the right.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
DeLay Indicted
The House Republican leader, Texas Representative Tom DeLay, was indicted today on Texas felony conspiracy charge for his alleged involvement in campaign finance irregularities.
A copy of the indictment, including a copy of a check allegedly involved in the crime, can be found on the Smoking Gun web site.
DeLay temporarily stepped down from his leadership position which will be filled by Roy Blunt from Missouri.
The Washington Post has an editorial and analysis of the effect of the DeLay indictment.
A copy of the indictment, including a copy of a check allegedly involved in the crime, can be found on the Smoking Gun web site.
DeLay temporarily stepped down from his leadership position which will be filled by Roy Blunt from Missouri.
The Washington Post has an editorial and analysis of the effect of the DeLay indictment.
Monday, September 26, 2005
CBS News: Michael Brown Hired as FEMA Consultant
According to the CBS news web site, correspondent Gloria Borger reported this evening that Michael Brown, the former FEMA director, has been rehired by the agency as a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina.
This has not, as of the time of this post, been reported independently elsewhere. We hope it is not true. Certainly not even the current administration would hire a disgraced FEMA director to evaluate his own performance. But strange things happen.
If CBS retracts the story, we will report it. If the story is confirmed, it will be reported here. Stay tuned.
Note: The story has been confirmed by multiple news services. - 9/27/05
This has not, as of the time of this post, been reported independently elsewhere. We hope it is not true. Certainly not even the current administration would hire a disgraced FEMA director to evaluate his own performance. But strange things happen.
If CBS retracts the story, we will report it. If the story is confirmed, it will be reported here. Stay tuned.
Note: The story has been confirmed by multiple news services. - 9/27/05
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Judge Roberts Should Be Confirmed, with Democratic Support
John Roberts appears to be very conservative, far to the right of the opinion of the majority of Americans and to the right of the majority of the already conservative court. He is not the person itismyopinion would select for Chief Justice of the United States, if we were given the choice.
However, we were not given the choice. The choice belongs to George Bush, who will appoint someone acceptable to his far right base. If the Senate does not confirm Roberts, Bush will simply appoint another conservative, and probably someone less desirable than Judge Roberts.
There are several important points to consider about Judge Roberts:
He will be replacing the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Because Rehnquist was one of the three most conservative justices, his replacement by Roberts will not move the court to the right. Roberts may even be more moderate than Rehnquist.
Roberts is very qualified. He has experience, from being a clerk to Justice Rehnquist, and writing many briefs and arguing many cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Roberts has told the Senate of his respect for precedent (stare decisis) and his belief that there is a constitutional right to privacy. This indicates that he might not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and destroy constitutional protection to the right to abortion. We don’t know how he will vote, but we do know that Chief Justice Rehnquist would favor overturning Roe. Most likely any other nominee by President Bush would favor destroying the right to abortion.
Unlike Justices Scalia and Thomas, Roberts is not an “originalist” who believes that the constitution should be interpreted just as the framers would interpret it.
Another reason for Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts is political. There is no question that Roberts will be confirmed; the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, and it does not appear that 40 Democratic Senators will join a filibuster. However, confirmation is not the only issue. Both the President and the nominee would much prefer a strong vote for confirmation than a close vote. If the Democrats vote against confirmation, why should Bush nominate someone of Roberts’ quality when he could just as well nominate a less qualified but more right wing justice who will receive the same close Senate vote but will excite the president’s far right wing base.
see Washington Post editorial
However, we were not given the choice. The choice belongs to George Bush, who will appoint someone acceptable to his far right base. If the Senate does not confirm Roberts, Bush will simply appoint another conservative, and probably someone less desirable than Judge Roberts.
There are several important points to consider about Judge Roberts:
He will be replacing the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Because Rehnquist was one of the three most conservative justices, his replacement by Roberts will not move the court to the right. Roberts may even be more moderate than Rehnquist.
Roberts is very qualified. He has experience, from being a clerk to Justice Rehnquist, and writing many briefs and arguing many cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Roberts has told the Senate of his respect for precedent (stare decisis) and his belief that there is a constitutional right to privacy. This indicates that he might not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and destroy constitutional protection to the right to abortion. We don’t know how he will vote, but we do know that Chief Justice Rehnquist would favor overturning Roe. Most likely any other nominee by President Bush would favor destroying the right to abortion.
Unlike Justices Scalia and Thomas, Roberts is not an “originalist” who believes that the constitution should be interpreted just as the framers would interpret it.
Another reason for Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts is political. There is no question that Roberts will be confirmed; the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, and it does not appear that 40 Democratic Senators will join a filibuster. However, confirmation is not the only issue. Both the President and the nominee would much prefer a strong vote for confirmation than a close vote. If the Democrats vote against confirmation, why should Bush nominate someone of Roberts’ quality when he could just as well nominate a less qualified but more right wing justice who will receive the same close Senate vote but will excite the president’s far right wing base.
see Washington Post editorial
Thursday, September 15, 2005
George Bush Addresses the Nation
So the president is going to spend billions rebuilding New Orleans. He didn’t say where the money is coming from. We still have a massive deficit, and are spending billions in Iraq. Does Bush just plan to borrow more money? He didn’t say anything about taxes. Will he continue to push for additional tax cuts or will he admit that we have to cancel some of the cuts to help pay for the rebuilding.
He made a pitch for home ownership, wanting more families to own rather than rent their houses. But to own your home you have to have a good job. However, Bush has suspended application of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law that would require government contractors to pay prevailing pay. The suspension will allow contractors to take advantage of the high unemployment and pay low wages, even for work on no-bid contracts. The contractors can save on wages and not pass the savings to the government.
He made a pitch for home ownership, wanting more families to own rather than rent their houses. But to own your home you have to have a good job. However, Bush has suspended application of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law that would require government contractors to pay prevailing pay. The suspension will allow contractors to take advantage of the high unemployment and pay low wages, even for work on no-bid contracts. The contractors can save on wages and not pass the savings to the government.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Do we need federal fast emergency response?
Is FEMA a quick responder in case of major emergencies? Or is mission one of training, long range planning, and funding recovery efforts (leaving the initial response to state and local officials)?
Following the Katrina disaster, the resignation of FEMA director Mike Brown, and the accusations of ineptitude and perhaps dishonesty on the part of the Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, there will surely be investigations of the bungling of the disaster.
In addition to fixing blame, there should be a discussion, and a decision on another more important issue: should there be a federal capability for fast response to a natural or manmade disaster.
Since 9/11, the consensus has been that there should be such capability. Ironically, the response to 9/11 may have played a role in the weakening of FEMA.
At one time, FEMA was not a fast responding agency. They would arrange, after the fact, to provide for temporary housing and relief funding for victims. After hurricane Andrew hit Florida, FEMA was criticized for its slow response. FEMA was placed under James L. Witt, who was given cabinet status in the Clinton administration. The new goals for FEMA included the ability to respond when needed.
Things changed under George W. Bush. Bush appointed his campaign manager Joe M. Allbaugh as director of FEMA. Allbaugh complained to a congressional committee that FEMA was an “oversized entitlement program” and planned to shift responsibility and funding onto state and local governments.
After 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA lost its cabinet status and became a part of DHS.
Certainly many emergencies can be handled by local and state authorities. However a major disaster, affecting multiple states, can overwhelm local authorities.
Should there be a federal quick response to major emergencies, particularly ones that affect small states with more limited capability?
Following the Katrina disaster, the resignation of FEMA director Mike Brown, and the accusations of ineptitude and perhaps dishonesty on the part of the Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, there will surely be investigations of the bungling of the disaster.
In addition to fixing blame, there should be a discussion, and a decision on another more important issue: should there be a federal capability for fast response to a natural or manmade disaster.
Since 9/11, the consensus has been that there should be such capability. Ironically, the response to 9/11 may have played a role in the weakening of FEMA.
At one time, FEMA was not a fast responding agency. They would arrange, after the fact, to provide for temporary housing and relief funding for victims. After hurricane Andrew hit Florida, FEMA was criticized for its slow response. FEMA was placed under James L. Witt, who was given cabinet status in the Clinton administration. The new goals for FEMA included the ability to respond when needed.
Things changed under George W. Bush. Bush appointed his campaign manager Joe M. Allbaugh as director of FEMA. Allbaugh complained to a congressional committee that FEMA was an “oversized entitlement program” and planned to shift responsibility and funding onto state and local governments.
After 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA lost its cabinet status and became a part of DHS.
Certainly many emergencies can be handled by local and state authorities. However a major disaster, affecting multiple states, can overwhelm local authorities.
Should there be a federal quick response to major emergencies, particularly ones that affect small states with more limited capability?
Monday, September 12, 2005
Cleanup Cash Goes to Familiar Faces
The Washington Post has a story about how tens of billions of dollars will be paid for Katrina related contracts. Many of these contracts are no-bid contracts given to contractors who have worked for the various federal agencies in the past.
This is certainly faster than requiring the usual bid process. However, we must be careful to see that the contract are awarded on the basis of proven success than on campaign contributions.
This is certainly faster than requiring the usual bid process. However, we must be careful to see that the contract are awarded on the basis of proven success than on campaign contributions.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Bush Vacation to Set Record
According to a story in the Washington Post Wednesday by Jim VanderHei and Peter Baker, President Bush’s Crawford Texas vacation, started Tuesday, will be the longest stretch away from Washington by any president in the past 36 years. This vacation will last about five weeks.
Adding to the cost of transporting the First Family on Air Force One, Bush plans to make day trips to seven states during the vacation. Also, it is expected that cabinet officers and other officials will be traveling to Texas to meet with Bush or with White House staffers traveling with Bush.
According to the White House, this will allow Bush to reconnect with everyday America. Press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that it was a time for the President to “meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what’s on their minds.”
We will have to wait and see how many “folks out in the heartland” will be able to let Bush know what’s on their minds. However, Bush has missed many chances to hear what’s on peoples minds when he traveled to promote social security changes and spoke only to a screened audience and only allowed invited guests to speak
Friday, August 05, 2005
Fourth Anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined To Strike” Presidential Brief
On August 6th, 2001, President Bush, while on vacation in Crawford, Texas, received the “Presidential Daily Brief” (PDB) that warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U. S., and brought up the possibility that hijacked planes would be used. Apparently the warnings were not taken seriously until slightly over a month later, September 11, 2001.
Just as four years ago Bush is again on vacation in Crawford Texas. We can only hope he is more serious about his briefings this year.
See Kicking Ass, the official Democratic Party blog for more.
Just as four years ago Bush is again on vacation in Crawford Texas. We can only hope he is more serious about his briefings this year.
See Kicking Ass, the official Democratic Party blog for more.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Rep. Pete King (R-NY) "people like Tim Russert ...and all the media, they're the ones to be shot"
Saying that members of the media should be shot for their criticism of Karl Rove is not becoming of a member of congress. However, Rep. Pete King, a Republican from the 3rd district of New York spoke on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on July 12 about the Karl Rove controversy. After defending Rove and criticizing Joe Wilson, King said:
"And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts. " (emphasis added)
View the video on www.crooksandliars.com. Read the transcript on MSNBC. Thanks also to via Eschaton for coverage.
"And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts. " (emphasis added)
View the video on www.crooksandliars.com. Read the transcript on MSNBC. Thanks also to via Eschaton for coverage.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Did Paul Harvey Cross the Line?
Paul Harvey, known for his biased and often incorrect "news" and commentary, made comments on June 23 that some feel support the idea of using nuclear weapons in the middle east and maybe even supported our killing (by spreading small pox) the Indians as well as slavery. Harvey seems to lament that we are now "made of sugar candy" because, although we quickly ended the war with Japan with nuclear weapons now "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos".
Read the transcript at www.chicagotribune.com
and send comments to Disney (distributer of his radio programming) at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569.
Read the transcript at www.chicagotribune.com
and send comments to Disney (distributer of his radio programming) at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
This is President Bush's Birthday. Send him a card.
Today is President Bush's 59th birthday. You may send him a birthday card online at the GOP web site, but that is tied to a donation. You may also send him a free birthday card at the The Democratic Party.
You may wish to let him know how much you look forward to his retirement.
You may wish to let him know how much you look forward to his retirement.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Bush to oppose global warming accord at G8
According to a British television ITV in a story to be broadcast this evening, President Bush, soon to travel to the UK for the G8 summit, has told ITV that he opposed any Kyoto like agreement on global warming. `"If (the proposal) looks like Kyoto, the answer is no" Bush told ITV, according to an early transcript.
We will have more on the story later.
UPDATE
The Guardian has a transcript of the Bush interview with Britain's ITV1. Thanks to AmericaBlog for the lead.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Announces Retirement
On July 1 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced that she would retire from the Supreme Court in order to spend more time with her husband. This comes at a time when the retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist was expected but has not been announced.
Justice O'Conner's retirement will have a greater impact on the court that a Rehnquist retirement. Rehnquist is one of the most conservative justices; O'Conner is more moderate. President Bush has indicated that his judicial appointments will be very conservative, referring to Justices Scalia and Thomas as models. A replacement of O'Conner with a conservative of the Scalia or Thomas mold will definitely swing the court to the right.
Many conservatives look to the OConner retirement as a chance to make a change in the court. After the retirement was announced, James Dobson, of the far-right group Focus on the Family Action, commented that "President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer about this than the President himself, who said during his campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge."
Further information, speculation, and discussion can be found on the blogs SCOTUSblog and its companion The Supreme Court Nomination Blog.
Justice O'Conner's retirement will have a greater impact on the court that a Rehnquist retirement. Rehnquist is one of the most conservative justices; O'Conner is more moderate. President Bush has indicated that his judicial appointments will be very conservative, referring to Justices Scalia and Thomas as models. A replacement of O'Conner with a conservative of the Scalia or Thomas mold will definitely swing the court to the right.
Many conservatives look to the OConner retirement as a chance to make a change in the court. After the retirement was announced, James Dobson, of the far-right group Focus on the Family Action, commented that "President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer about this than the President himself, who said during his campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge."
Further information, speculation, and discussion can be found on the blogs SCOTUSblog and its companion The Supreme Court Nomination Blog.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Republican Congressman: Saddam involved in 9/11
In spite of statements to the contrary in the 9/11 Commission report, Representative Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) told CNN Wednesday that "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11" When the CNN interviewer responded that no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes said "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes said that legislator have access to evidence that others do not. However, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), was asked by CNN about Hayes statement, said "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that"
The 9/11 Commission report reported that Bin Ladin, the al Qaeda leader, had "been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." The report also said that investigators had nor found evidence of an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam. "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States".
President Bush, in spite of mentioning 9/11 in his Tuesday night address (without defining any real link to Iraq), did state in September, 2003, that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with" the 9/11 attacks.
The blog Crooks and Liars has video of the CNN interview.
Hayes said that legislator have access to evidence that others do not. However, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), was asked by CNN about Hayes statement, said "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that"
The 9/11 Commission report reported that Bin Ladin, the al Qaeda leader, had "been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." The report also said that investigators had nor found evidence of an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam. "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States".
President Bush, in spite of mentioning 9/11 in his Tuesday night address (without defining any real link to Iraq), did state in September, 2003, that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with" the 9/11 attacks.
The blog Crooks and Liars has video of the CNN interview.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Bush: It is important...to lay out a timetable...
No, in this evenings speech on TV President Bush did not announce a timetable or support for a timetable for withdrawal. However...
Speaking during the Clinton andministration's involvement in Eastern Europe:
Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Scripps Howard -- Feb. 9, 1999 "I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
On his own war in Iraq:
White House press release June 24, 2005: "There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.
Thanks to Think Progress for the leads.
Speaking during the Clinton andministration's involvement in Eastern Europe:
Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Scripps Howard -- Feb. 9, 1999 "I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
On his own war in Iraq:
White House press release June 24, 2005: "There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.
Thanks to Think Progress for the leads.
Blog Watch:
June 28:
KIcking Ass, the DNC blog, had a statement from the North Carolina Democratic party chair Jerry Meek welcoming President Bush to North Carolina for his speech at 8pm tonight. He also suggest that maybe Bush should tell us how long we will be in Iraq and answer some other questions. Meek stated "While we are unwavering in our support for our men in women in harm's way, their Commander-in-Chief's leadership is lacking. Yes, Mr. President. Welcome to North Carolina. North Carolinians are eager for honest answers."
Meanwhile the Raleigh, NC News and Observer reported its poll showning falling support in that state for the war. The latest figures indicated that 49 percent of the respondents did not agree that the war had been "worth it"; only 42 percent agreed that the war had been worth the cost.
June 24:
In case you missed Howard Dean on the Daily Show last night, Crooks and Liars has video on their site.
June 23:
KIcking Ass, the DNC blog, had a statement from the North Carolina Democratic party chair Jerry Meek welcoming President Bush to North Carolina for his speech at 8pm tonight. He also suggest that maybe Bush should tell us how long we will be in Iraq and answer some other questions. Meek stated "While we are unwavering in our support for our men in women in harm's way, their Commander-in-Chief's leadership is lacking. Yes, Mr. President. Welcome to North Carolina. North Carolinians are eager for honest answers."
Meanwhile the Raleigh, NC News and Observer reported its poll showning falling support in that state for the war. The latest figures indicated that 49 percent of the respondents did not agree that the war had been "worth it"; only 42 percent agreed that the war had been worth the cost.
June 24:
In case you missed Howard Dean on the Daily Show last night, Crooks and Liars has video on their site.
June 23:
Atrios suggests that constituents of Republicans in congress contact their representatives to ask if Carl Rove speaks for them. (The Atrios blog refers to http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3540&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) Rove, according to reports by the New York Times, stated "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." (emphasis added).
Kicking Ass, the DNC blog, has a story "GOP exploits memory of 9/11 for partisan gain" concerning Rove's statements and inconsistencies with previous White House statements, in a well researched piece by DNC Research.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Rove, Liberals, and Therapy
Carl Rove told the conservative party that liberals wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. He is a little mixed up. Liberals want to offer therapy for Mr. Rove. Perhaps he can hire Tom Cruise for some psychiatry.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Cheney: "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes... "
Dick Cheney has come under criticism for is comment on Larry King that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes". On Thursday, June 23, Cheney went Clintonian, discussing the meaning of "throes".
General Abizaid: Senator, I'd say… In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago. In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was.
Levin: So you wouldn't agree with the statement that it's 'in its last throes'?
Abizaid: I don't know that I would make any comment about that, other than to say there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.
Levin: Well, the Vice-President has said it's in its last throes. That's the statement that the Vice President. Doesn't sound to me from your testimony, or any other testimony here this morning, that it is in its last throes.
Abizaid: I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the Vice-President.
Levin: I just want an honest assessment from you as to whether you agree with a particular statement of his, it's not personal. I just want to know whether you agree with that assessment. It's not a personal attack on him, any more than if he says that something is a fact and you disagree with it, we would expect you to say you disagree with it.
Abizaid: I gave you my opinion of where we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)