"ROYAL HORTICULTURAL HALL
80 Vincent Square, London SW1P 2PE
10am - 8pm
With delegates including Tony Benn, Cindy Sheehan, Jawad al Khalissi and many others from Iraq, USA & UK
The grave threat to international peace posed by the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is now clear for all to see. The people of Iraq and the citizens of Britain and America have time and again insisted that they are opposed to war and occupation. We believe it is now time for representatives of those people to meet together face to face, to renew our bonds of solidarity and to express our joint opposition to war.
To that end a broad and representative conference attended by a delegation of Iraqis drawn from all those sections of society rejecting the US and British occupation will meet in London on 10th December 2005.
We call on all peace campaigners, trade unionists, the congregations of all faiths, non-governmental organisations, progressive campaigns, community organisations and political parties to send delegates to this conference.
We the undersigned call on the real representatives of the people of Britain, the United States and Iraq to join us in London and to issue a call for peace that will echo around the world.
Tony Benn Clare Short MP Jeremy Corbyn MP Alan Simpson MP Caroline Lucas MEP Adam Price MP John Pilger Tommy Sheridan, MSP Colin Fox MSP Billy Hayes, General Secretary CWU Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq George Galloway MP Rose Gentle, Military Families Against the War Lindsey German, Convenor, Stop the War Coalition Kate Hudson, Chair, CND Paul Mackney, General Secretary NATFHE Tariq Ali Andrew Murray, Chair, Stop the War Coalition John Rees, Vice President Europe, The Cairo Conference Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation Mark Curtis Tony Woodley, General Secretary T&GWU Sabah Jawad, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation Harold Pinter George Monbiot Jeremy Dear, General Secretary NUJ Camden NATFHE."-from the Stop the War Coalition. More details here.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Murtha says Army 'broken, worn out'
"The U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand-to-mouth" from fighting in Iraq and may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security, U.S. Rep. John Murtha said Wednesday. "They're barely getting by," said Murtha, a ranking member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Defense.
"They're drawing back on equipment buys down the road," said the Democrat, who was in Latrobe, Westmoreland County, yesterday to address an invited group of community and business leaders. "We are not able to buy the equipment because of the cost of the war."
Murtha, of Johnstown, Cambria County, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to deploy fully equipped units to Iraq until next year because of equipment shortages and a lack of training for soldiers. They can deploy individuals. They can't deploy units. The equipment is worn out," he said.
Murtha said it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment because of the war, but the government has begun reducing future equipment purchases to save money.
Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns." But he said most of the 2,100 Guard members currently deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team cannot be sent to Iraq for a second tour of duty because military regulations limit the number of times they can be redeployed. Clever said some units had to leave their equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, and that could cause problems with training.
Murtha predicted most of the U.S. troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said of President Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
On Nov. 17, Murtha, a Korean and Vietnam war veteran, publicly called for an immediate troop withdrawal, touching off a political firestorm in Congress that hasn't abated. "We have to change direction. That's going to happen. ... It's just a matter of time," he said yesterday. "If I had my way, they'd be out sooner." Murtha also is pessimistic about the stability of Iraq and the lack of trust between American and Iraqi forces. He said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are but don't always share their knowledge with the United States.
He also believes a civil war is likely because of internecine strife between the Kurds, who control northern Iraq, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Murtha said he was wrong when he voted to allow the president to invade Iraq and believes Bush should admit that he made mistakes.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war. I'm looking at the future of the United States military. For some reason, they don't want to admit their mistakes," he said.
Iraqis are fed up with the American occupation because of the personal toll it is taking on their lives, the congressman said. When the U.S. military took back Fallujah from insurgents, American bombings and attacks left 150,000 people homeless.
"A military victory is unattainable if you don't win the hearts and minds of the citizens," he said. "It's time to turn it over to the Iraqis. They'll let us fight there forever."-from the story in Thursday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
"They're drawing back on equipment buys down the road," said the Democrat, who was in Latrobe, Westmoreland County, yesterday to address an invited group of community and business leaders. "We are not able to buy the equipment because of the cost of the war."
Murtha, of Johnstown, Cambria County, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to deploy fully equipped units to Iraq until next year because of equipment shortages and a lack of training for soldiers. They can deploy individuals. They can't deploy units. The equipment is worn out," he said.
Murtha said it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment because of the war, but the government has begun reducing future equipment purchases to save money.
Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns." But he said most of the 2,100 Guard members currently deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team cannot be sent to Iraq for a second tour of duty because military regulations limit the number of times they can be redeployed. Clever said some units had to leave their equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, and that could cause problems with training.
Murtha predicted most of the U.S. troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said of President Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
On Nov. 17, Murtha, a Korean and Vietnam war veteran, publicly called for an immediate troop withdrawal, touching off a political firestorm in Congress that hasn't abated. "We have to change direction. That's going to happen. ... It's just a matter of time," he said yesterday. "If I had my way, they'd be out sooner." Murtha also is pessimistic about the stability of Iraq and the lack of trust between American and Iraqi forces. He said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are but don't always share their knowledge with the United States.
He also believes a civil war is likely because of internecine strife between the Kurds, who control northern Iraq, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Murtha said he was wrong when he voted to allow the president to invade Iraq and believes Bush should admit that he made mistakes.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war. I'm looking at the future of the United States military. For some reason, they don't want to admit their mistakes," he said.
Iraqis are fed up with the American occupation because of the personal toll it is taking on their lives, the congressman said. When the U.S. military took back Fallujah from insurgents, American bombings and attacks left 150,000 people homeless.
"A military victory is unattainable if you don't win the hearts and minds of the citizens," he said. "It's time to turn it over to the Iraqis. They'll let us fight there forever."-from the story in Thursday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
''Dean on Bush's Failed Iraq Policy''
"Today, the President failed to give an honest assessment of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq. Instead he released thirty-five pages of rhetoric and gave a speech full of slogans, but no clear plan. Let's be clear, 'stay the course' is a slogan, not a strategy.
"By failing to address critical factors on the ground, President Bush doesn't seem to care what the facts are, and you can't lead when you don't care what the facts are. It's troubling that with his credibility on the line, in the face of widespread concern from the American people, and a bi-partisan vote of 'no confidence' in the Senate, President Bush still refuses to produce a real strategy for success that includes benchmarks and a process for measuring success. The American people should have seen a plan for success at the start of the war, not after three years and more than 2,000 lives lost. Our troops are serving with honor and courage, and they deserve a plan not more slogans.
"Democrats will continue to fight for our troops, promote a real strategy to keep America safe, and work to bring the War in Iraq to a successful conclusion. Together, America can do better."-from the DNC.
REMINDER: Howard Dean is on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later this evening. (Full Disclosure: I am now hearing from viewers back east that he is on last and not long enough.)
"By failing to address critical factors on the ground, President Bush doesn't seem to care what the facts are, and you can't lead when you don't care what the facts are. It's troubling that with his credibility on the line, in the face of widespread concern from the American people, and a bi-partisan vote of 'no confidence' in the Senate, President Bush still refuses to produce a real strategy for success that includes benchmarks and a process for measuring success. The American people should have seen a plan for success at the start of the war, not after three years and more than 2,000 lives lost. Our troops are serving with honor and courage, and they deserve a plan not more slogans.
"Democrats will continue to fight for our troops, promote a real strategy to keep America safe, and work to bring the War in Iraq to a successful conclusion. Together, America can do better."-from the DNC.
REMINDER: Howard Dean is on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later this evening. (Full Disclosure: I am now hearing from viewers back east that he is on last and not long enough.)
''Pelosi Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq''
"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday embraced a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, two weeks after she declined to endorse it.
"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable," Pelosi said. "That is what the American people and our troops deserve."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., accused Pelosi of playing politics with the war. "This war and the safety of the American people is simply too important for flip-flopping or indecision. We cannot afford to retreat," he said in a statement.
Republicans have criticized Murtha's plan as one of "cutting and running."
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't call for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because "a vote on the war is an individual vote."
Nevertheless, she said, "I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha."
Two weeks ago, Murtha called for U.S. troops to begin returning home and said a complete pullout could be achieved in six months. He introduced a resolution in the House that would force the president to withdraw the 160,000 troops "at the earliest practicable date."
Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and Marine, voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to go to war. He has been a strong supporter of the military and an influential voice on defense issues during his three-decade House career — and his position switch set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill.
At the time, Pelosi emphasized that Murtha spoke only for himself, and not for her or the Democratic caucus.
She changed her position at a news conference after Bush sought to lay out the administration's Iraq strategy in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy.
"I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable," she said. "I believe that what he has said has great wisdom."
A day after Murtha's Nov. 17 announcement, Republicans sought to put the House on record rejecting immediate withdrawal and forced a vote just before adjourning for Thanksgiving break. Democrats called the vote a political stunt meant to undermine Murtha and limit debate on the war. Most in the minority party, including Pelosi and Murtha, voted against immediate withdrawal in what they said was a protest, making the tally 403-3 against it.
Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hasn't endorsed Murtha's plan. "While Senator Reid does not agree with the immediate withdrawal plan Congressman Murtha proposed, he does respect the congressman for coming forward with a plan," Rebecca Kirszner, a Reid spokeswoman, said.
Some Senate Democrats support a phased withdrawal based on political and military conditions in Iraq, but not Murtha's plan.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he and other Democrats in the Senate believe the United States needs an exit strategy for U.S. troops in which there are "certain measurements for that success over a period of time."-from the AP story.
"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable," Pelosi said. "That is what the American people and our troops deserve."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., accused Pelosi of playing politics with the war. "This war and the safety of the American people is simply too important for flip-flopping or indecision. We cannot afford to retreat," he said in a statement.
Republicans have criticized Murtha's plan as one of "cutting and running."
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't call for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because "a vote on the war is an individual vote."
Nevertheless, she said, "I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha."
Two weeks ago, Murtha called for U.S. troops to begin returning home and said a complete pullout could be achieved in six months. He introduced a resolution in the House that would force the president to withdraw the 160,000 troops "at the earliest practicable date."
Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and Marine, voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to go to war. He has been a strong supporter of the military and an influential voice on defense issues during his three-decade House career — and his position switch set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill.
At the time, Pelosi emphasized that Murtha spoke only for himself, and not for her or the Democratic caucus.
She changed her position at a news conference after Bush sought to lay out the administration's Iraq strategy in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy.
"I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable," she said. "I believe that what he has said has great wisdom."
A day after Murtha's Nov. 17 announcement, Republicans sought to put the House on record rejecting immediate withdrawal and forced a vote just before adjourning for Thanksgiving break. Democrats called the vote a political stunt meant to undermine Murtha and limit debate on the war. Most in the minority party, including Pelosi and Murtha, voted against immediate withdrawal in what they said was a protest, making the tally 403-3 against it.
Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hasn't endorsed Murtha's plan. "While Senator Reid does not agree with the immediate withdrawal plan Congressman Murtha proposed, he does respect the congressman for coming forward with a plan," Rebecca Kirszner, a Reid spokeswoman, said.
Some Senate Democrats support a phased withdrawal based on political and military conditions in Iraq, but not Murtha's plan.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he and other Democrats in the Senate believe the United States needs an exit strategy for U.S. troops in which there are "certain measurements for that success over a period of time."-from the AP story.
''Dems will win House and Senate in 2006''
"2005 has been a good year for Democrats. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has trained and hired local organizers on the ground in 49 states. These organizers are critical to our victories in 2006 and beyond.
We’ve shattered the 2001 post-presidential-year fundraising record, despite not being able to collect soft money. Through our grassroots Democracy Bonds program, we’ve doubled the number of monthly givers to the DNC.
Our leaders in the House and Senate stuck together on issues such as fiscal responsibility and Social Security, and they continue to pressure the administration for the truth about manipulating prewar intelligence, sending a strong message that Democrats will fight for what is right.
And for the first time in recent memory, the DNC, the Democratic House and Senate leadership and Democratic mayors and governors are sitting at the same table to create policies and strategies for restoring honest government and fiscal responsibility to America.
The early results in California, Virginia and New Jersey are good. Local races in St. Louis, Parkersburg and Minnesota, where we picked up seats that had been Republican for up to 58 years, are even better.
This is a solid beginning, but there is more we must do. Cutting the fundraising advantage the other party enjoys from 3-1 to 2-1 is good but not good enough. Sticking together on the budget and supporting Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) great courage are good starts, but we need to continue to work together on judicial nominations, environmental legislation, trade and jobs to send effectively the message that we are again ready to lead the American people with purpose and in a fundamentally new direction.
In 2006, Democrats will take back the House and the Senate. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have done an excellent job recruiting strong candidates, and we are already investing in the local infrastructure to ensure they win. But the key to winning is running a national campaign based on our different vision and the themes that Democrats around the country have put forward.
Americans of all political persuasions are tired of and worried about the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Washington and to so many statehouses around America. We will offer real ethics reform and election reform so that the Government Accountability Office can report in three years that we can have confidence in our voting machines.
We will offer a program for American jobs that stay in America and for energy independence that will create jobs and wean us off of foreign oil.
The only president to balance a budget in the past 37 years was a Democrat. We will do that again.
We will offer a real tax-reform program that helps the middle class pay for it by eliminating the shocking waste and giveaways the Republican Congress and president have added to the budget and subtracted from revenues in the past five years.
We will join the 36 other countries that manage to include all their citizens in their health-insurance systems while simultaneously balancing their budgets.
We will provide a strong public education system by avoiding bureaucratic federal mandates and taxpayer-funded puff pieces. We will rely on local control while requiring real standards that work nationally.
We will offer Americans real security. We all agree that 2006 must be a transition year in Iraq. While we may have different ideas about tactics and timing, it’s clear we must change course. The vision of strategic redeployment set forward by Brian Katulis and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence Korb offers a likely roadmap to success that we can coalesce around.
We will offer the American people a government that is honest in preparing for any deployment of American troops and honor their sacrifice when they come home.
Most important, we will talk about Democratic values, which are America’s values.
The vast majority of Americans believe it is immoral to lets kids go hungry. We agree. The other party cuts school lunches (they just can’t seem to leave that one alone.)
Americans believe it is immoral that not everyone has some kind of health insurance. We agree.
The vast majority of Americans believe that government overreaching into personal and family decisions is wrong. We agree.
Americans believe that it is immoral to leave huge debts to our children and grandchildren. We agree.
Americans believe that using issues to divide us as a country to win elections is bad for America. We will restore America’s sense of community.
Together, America can do better. And in 2006, the Democrats will lead America to do just that."-Howard Dean, today in The Hill.
We’ve shattered the 2001 post-presidential-year fundraising record, despite not being able to collect soft money. Through our grassroots Democracy Bonds program, we’ve doubled the number of monthly givers to the DNC.
Our leaders in the House and Senate stuck together on issues such as fiscal responsibility and Social Security, and they continue to pressure the administration for the truth about manipulating prewar intelligence, sending a strong message that Democrats will fight for what is right.
And for the first time in recent memory, the DNC, the Democratic House and Senate leadership and Democratic mayors and governors are sitting at the same table to create policies and strategies for restoring honest government and fiscal responsibility to America.
The early results in California, Virginia and New Jersey are good. Local races in St. Louis, Parkersburg and Minnesota, where we picked up seats that had been Republican for up to 58 years, are even better.
This is a solid beginning, but there is more we must do. Cutting the fundraising advantage the other party enjoys from 3-1 to 2-1 is good but not good enough. Sticking together on the budget and supporting Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) great courage are good starts, but we need to continue to work together on judicial nominations, environmental legislation, trade and jobs to send effectively the message that we are again ready to lead the American people with purpose and in a fundamentally new direction.
In 2006, Democrats will take back the House and the Senate. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have done an excellent job recruiting strong candidates, and we are already investing in the local infrastructure to ensure they win. But the key to winning is running a national campaign based on our different vision and the themes that Democrats around the country have put forward.
Americans of all political persuasions are tired of and worried about the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Washington and to so many statehouses around America. We will offer real ethics reform and election reform so that the Government Accountability Office can report in three years that we can have confidence in our voting machines.
We will offer a program for American jobs that stay in America and for energy independence that will create jobs and wean us off of foreign oil.
The only president to balance a budget in the past 37 years was a Democrat. We will do that again.
We will offer a real tax-reform program that helps the middle class pay for it by eliminating the shocking waste and giveaways the Republican Congress and president have added to the budget and subtracted from revenues in the past five years.
We will join the 36 other countries that manage to include all their citizens in their health-insurance systems while simultaneously balancing their budgets.
We will provide a strong public education system by avoiding bureaucratic federal mandates and taxpayer-funded puff pieces. We will rely on local control while requiring real standards that work nationally.
We will offer Americans real security. We all agree that 2006 must be a transition year in Iraq. While we may have different ideas about tactics and timing, it’s clear we must change course. The vision of strategic redeployment set forward by Brian Katulis and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence Korb offers a likely roadmap to success that we can coalesce around.
We will offer the American people a government that is honest in preparing for any deployment of American troops and honor their sacrifice when they come home.
Most important, we will talk about Democratic values, which are America’s values.
The vast majority of Americans believe it is immoral to lets kids go hungry. We agree. The other party cuts school lunches (they just can’t seem to leave that one alone.)
Americans believe it is immoral that not everyone has some kind of health insurance. We agree.
The vast majority of Americans believe that government overreaching into personal and family decisions is wrong. We agree.
Americans believe that it is immoral to leave huge debts to our children and grandchildren. We agree.
Americans believe that using issues to divide us as a country to win elections is bad for America. We will restore America’s sense of community.
Together, America can do better. And in 2006, the Democrats will lead America to do just that."-Howard Dean, today in The Hill.
''the costliest engineering mistake in American history''
"The floodwall on the 17th Street Canal levee was destined to fail long before it reached its maximum design load of 14 feet of water because the Army Corps of Engineers underestimated the weak soil layers 10 to 25 feet below the levee, the state's forensic levee investigation team concluded in a report to be released this week.
That miscalculation was so obvious and fundamental, investigators said, they "could not fathom" how the design team of engineers from the corps, local firm Eustis Engineering and the national firm Modjeski and Masters could have missed what is being termed the costliest engineering mistake in American history.
The failure of the wall and other breaches in the city's levee system flooded much of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina slammed ashore Aug. 29, prompting investigations that have raised questions about the basic design and construction of the floodwalls.
"It's simply beyond me," said Billy Prochaska, a consulting engineer in the forensic group known as Team Louisiana. "This wasn't a complicated problem. This is something the corps, Eustis, and Modjeski and Masters do all the time. Yet everyone missed it -- everyone from the local offices all the way up to Washington."-from The Times-Picayune (LA) story today, "17th Street Canal levee was doomed." If you believe bad news "comes in threes," this article, along with the one below, is not a good omen.
That miscalculation was so obvious and fundamental, investigators said, they "could not fathom" how the design team of engineers from the corps, local firm Eustis Engineering and the national firm Modjeski and Masters could have missed what is being termed the costliest engineering mistake in American history.
The failure of the wall and other breaches in the city's levee system flooded much of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina slammed ashore Aug. 29, prompting investigations that have raised questions about the basic design and construction of the floodwalls.
"It's simply beyond me," said Billy Prochaska, a consulting engineer in the forensic group known as Team Louisiana. "This wasn't a complicated problem. This is something the corps, Eustis, and Modjeski and Masters do all the time. Yet everyone missed it -- everyone from the local offices all the way up to Washington."-from The Times-Picayune (LA) story today, "17th Street Canal levee was doomed." If you believe bad news "comes in threes," this article, along with the one below, is not a good omen.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."-from the commentary in the Forward Newspaper, by Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University. He is the author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.
''Tough Call - or Not''
This cartoon from the Village Voice gives us a history lesson and then poses a question that employs the first name of two American political figures whose last names are Nixon and Cheney.-from AfterDowningStreet.org. In other cartoon-based news, "'Doonesbury' Strip Showing Bush Defending Frat Torture at Yale is 'Fact-Based,' Says Garry Trudeau," from Editor&Publisher.
Democrats would be wise to avoid the ''Romney Line''
This journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University says any Democrat who admits he was fooled by Bush's lies is open to the charge that they aren't sharp enough to be president. Who does that leave us?-from the Seattle Times op-ed. RAW STORY has "Democrats respond to Bush speech."
''Seymour Hersh on Where the Iraq War is Headed Next''
He talks about the war and he expands on his views in The New Yorker piece this week. He talks about the Democrats and Murtha and Bush and what the generals are telling him. He talks about scary death squads, CIA prisons, etc. etc. It's an interview with Amy Goodwin from Democracy Now!You can listen, watch and/or read it. It's quite amazing.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
''Sy Hersh on Today Show''
Nice to see the mainstream media picking up on this, via Crooks and Liars. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the tip.
''Journalists Report Evidence of Hundreds of Sunnis Executed in Iraq''
"On Saturday, when former Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi charged that human rights abuses in the country were as bad, or worse, today compared with Saddam Hussein's reign, current officials denied the charge. Now troubling new stories have emerged from The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Knight Ridder."-from Editor&Publisher.
'War on the media: 'Don't bomb us''
"For some time, Mediachannel.org and other outlets have been reporting on the Bush Administration's contempt for the media and its attempts to manage and spin coverage.
Writing in this week's Nation, John Nichols and Robert McChesney catalogue the various strategies that have been deployed, charging, "with its unprecedented campaign to undermine and, where possible, eliminate independent journalism, the Bush Administration has demonstrated astonishing contempt for the Constitution and considerable fear of an informed public."
But would it actually attempt to "take-out" media institutions and kill or otherwise silence journalists? Would it bomb a TV station? How far will this government go?
We know that other governments have shown little restraint. An Indonesian and a Russian journalist were poisoned in high profile cases. Others have been "disappeared," killed, jailed and tortured. Groups like Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of reporters compile the cases and regularly call for justice.
In our country, the Committee to Protect Journalists has played that role well with important documentation and action alerts. Each year, usually at a fancy hotel in New York, they also have a pricey fundraising dinner hosted by network anchors in tuxedos who give prestigious awards to gutsy journalists and freedom of the press advocates. All the big media companies buy tables and pat themselves on the back for upholding the first amendment. They make videos honoring the courage of media messengers. Unfortunately, those videos and their stories rarely get on the air in their networks. In my book The More You Watch, The Less You Know, I derided the annual feel-good affair as "human rights for a night."
Why aren't these companies speaking out when other media organizations like Al Jazeera are threatened and attacked? What are they doing to demand independent inquiries into the killings of journalists and media staff? The toll in Iraq now stands at 93, and the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad says the US military poses a bigger threat to newsgathering than the insurgents. (Reuters has bravely challenged the Pentagon to tell the truth!)
And where is the ongoing investigation of the recently leaked information about President Bush's alleged desire to bomb Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Al Jazeera offices had been attacked before in Afghanistan and Baghdad. One of their journalists has been killed and others jailed. Their staff and some media groups have protested but many media outlets are not following up or expressing outrage.
Did major media outlets tune out of the story because the White House dismissed it as "outlandish"? Jeremy Scahill writes:
"Is the allegation 'outlandish,' as the White House claims? Or was it a deadly serious option? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the five-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's White House meeting with Blair, the Bush Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was there to witness the assault and the fierce resistance.
"A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld slammed Al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms:
REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing.
"What Al Jazeera was doing in Falluja is exactly what it was doing when the United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001 and when US forces killed Al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, Tareq Ayoub, during the April 2003 occupation of Baghdad. Al Jazeera was witnessing and reporting on events Washington did not want the world to see."
Al Jazeera staffers now have a blog called "Don't bomb Us."
One staffer Yousef Al-Shouly writes: "My mother (78 years old) used to tell me before going to work 'my son take care', but yesterday she asked me 'is it true that they want to bomb your TV station? Don't go to work.'"
Their staff staged a symbolic protest. They are aware that the Clinton Administration bombed the TV station in Belgrade and the Bush Administration did the same to the Iraq TV Headquarters in Baghdad. Al Jazeera demands that the British government disclose its secret document and confirm or deny the truth of the allegations. The Bush Administration must do the same.
In the USA, more subtle means are used to stop aggressive reporting. Bill Moyers describes the pressure that came down on his PBS show NOW in the new issue of Broadcasting & Cable. He is asked about bias, responding: "We were biased, all right - in favor of uncovering the news that powerful people wanted to keep hidden."
In the past, we know that low-powered radio stations in the US were shut down by the FCC until the agency changed its mind on the issue. We also know that our government runs TV stations to put out propaganda packaged as news. The BBC has just launched an Arabic service with British government funds to compete with Al Jazeera.
The time has come for the world media to denounce threats and actions by governments and media companies who squelch truth-telling. Truth is often a casualty of war and that's why we need the MediaChannel's "Tell The Truth About The War Campaign."
Please respond to this simple appeal posed by a journalist at Al Jazeera who with his colleagues has had to face down threats, incitement, putdowns, and indifference. Yousef Al-Shouly says powerfully:
"My colleagues and I need your support. So do Tayseer, Sami, Tareq, and Rashid's kids - we want to know the truth. Simply because we are men and women who bring you the news."-from The Smirking Chimp.
Writing in this week's Nation, John Nichols and Robert McChesney catalogue the various strategies that have been deployed, charging, "with its unprecedented campaign to undermine and, where possible, eliminate independent journalism, the Bush Administration has demonstrated astonishing contempt for the Constitution and considerable fear of an informed public."
But would it actually attempt to "take-out" media institutions and kill or otherwise silence journalists? Would it bomb a TV station? How far will this government go?
We know that other governments have shown little restraint. An Indonesian and a Russian journalist were poisoned in high profile cases. Others have been "disappeared," killed, jailed and tortured. Groups like Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of reporters compile the cases and regularly call for justice.
In our country, the Committee to Protect Journalists has played that role well with important documentation and action alerts. Each year, usually at a fancy hotel in New York, they also have a pricey fundraising dinner hosted by network anchors in tuxedos who give prestigious awards to gutsy journalists and freedom of the press advocates. All the big media companies buy tables and pat themselves on the back for upholding the first amendment. They make videos honoring the courage of media messengers. Unfortunately, those videos and their stories rarely get on the air in their networks. In my book The More You Watch, The Less You Know, I derided the annual feel-good affair as "human rights for a night."
Why aren't these companies speaking out when other media organizations like Al Jazeera are threatened and attacked? What are they doing to demand independent inquiries into the killings of journalists and media staff? The toll in Iraq now stands at 93, and the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad says the US military poses a bigger threat to newsgathering than the insurgents. (Reuters has bravely challenged the Pentagon to tell the truth!)
And where is the ongoing investigation of the recently leaked information about President Bush's alleged desire to bomb Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Al Jazeera offices had been attacked before in Afghanistan and Baghdad. One of their journalists has been killed and others jailed. Their staff and some media groups have protested but many media outlets are not following up or expressing outrage.
Did major media outlets tune out of the story because the White House dismissed it as "outlandish"? Jeremy Scahill writes:
"Is the allegation 'outlandish,' as the White House claims? Or was it a deadly serious option? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the five-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's White House meeting with Blair, the Bush Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was there to witness the assault and the fierce resistance.
"A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld slammed Al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms:
REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing.
"What Al Jazeera was doing in Falluja is exactly what it was doing when the United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001 and when US forces killed Al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, Tareq Ayoub, during the April 2003 occupation of Baghdad. Al Jazeera was witnessing and reporting on events Washington did not want the world to see."
Al Jazeera staffers now have a blog called "Don't bomb Us."
One staffer Yousef Al-Shouly writes: "My mother (78 years old) used to tell me before going to work 'my son take care', but yesterday she asked me 'is it true that they want to bomb your TV station? Don't go to work.'"
Their staff staged a symbolic protest. They are aware that the Clinton Administration bombed the TV station in Belgrade and the Bush Administration did the same to the Iraq TV Headquarters in Baghdad. Al Jazeera demands that the British government disclose its secret document and confirm or deny the truth of the allegations. The Bush Administration must do the same.
In the USA, more subtle means are used to stop aggressive reporting. Bill Moyers describes the pressure that came down on his PBS show NOW in the new issue of Broadcasting & Cable. He is asked about bias, responding: "We were biased, all right - in favor of uncovering the news that powerful people wanted to keep hidden."
In the past, we know that low-powered radio stations in the US were shut down by the FCC until the agency changed its mind on the issue. We also know that our government runs TV stations to put out propaganda packaged as news. The BBC has just launched an Arabic service with British government funds to compete with Al Jazeera.
The time has come for the world media to denounce threats and actions by governments and media companies who squelch truth-telling. Truth is often a casualty of war and that's why we need the MediaChannel's "Tell The Truth About The War Campaign."
Please respond to this simple appeal posed by a journalist at Al Jazeera who with his colleagues has had to face down threats, incitement, putdowns, and indifference. Yousef Al-Shouly says powerfully:
"My colleagues and I need your support. So do Tayseer, Sami, Tareq, and Rashid's kids - we want to know the truth. Simply because we are men and women who bring you the news."-from The Smirking Chimp.
''Dean flops as boogeyman''
"We're now at the rough one-year anniversary of the DNC chairmanship battle, in which us netroots hooligans helped propel Dean to the top of the DNC. We outmaneuvered Kerry, who wanted to install Vilsack and then Sheehan by fiat. We outmaneuvered Reid and Pelosi, who wanted Tim Roemer. We outmaneuvered Mark Brewer of the Association of Democratic State Chairs, who wanted to Donnie Fowler. (Here's Ryan Lizza's take on the whole affair.)
This was the first tangible "victory" for the netroots in its struggle for supremacy of the Democratic Party. But I don't bring this up to gloat. Rather, I bring it up to point out how little of the Dean Doomsday Scenario actually played out.
More specifically, the notion that Dean would be a boon to Republican propaganda efforts has completely falled flat. Remember those? Dem insiders were quaking in their shoes, Republicans were salivating at the chance to remind America how far-left and craaazzzyy those Democrats were with Dean at the top.
Yet you don't hear Republicans trying to make hay of Chairman Dean anymore. Why would they? Middle America proved, yet again, that they could give a rat's ass about who runs the political parties, whether it's Dean or the GOP's closeted homosexual robot. And while those early attacks on Dean fell flat with the general American public, Dean supporters responded with cash. Every attack on Dean suddenly became an impromptu DNC fundraisier worth tens of thousands in the bank.
Republicans aren't stupid. They're corrupt, craven, opportunistic and generally unpleasant, but they aren't stupid. So it wasn't long before the anti-Dean attacks ceased. (Well, Liddy Dole includes Dean in her fundraising emails, but given her fundraising performance thus far, even the GOP base couldn't give two shits.)
While the true measure of Dean's success will be the 2008 elections (rebuilding the party takes time, regardless whether we make gains in 2006 or not), the early praise from his fiercest Democratic detractors and the unilateral ceasefire from the Republican side proves that he's not the Scary Liberal Boogeyman many feared he'd be.
Update: Dave Weigel emailed me this:
Apropos of your post about Dean failing as a Republican bogeyman, I wanted to share some context about how the Virginia GOP tried to use Dean in our elections this year. Before Dean was elected, the GOP linked him to Tim Kaine.
The GOP linked Kaine with Dean again as soon as Dean was elected.
The GOP was also quick on the trigger with press releases demanding Tim Kaine respond to Dean's "outrageous" comments. Here's one example.
They kind of gave up on this as the race closed, but it's fun to look back and see how little momentum they got out of this. After all, the Virginia GOP got a ton of mileage in the 90s linking Democrats to Bill Clinton."-Kos on Kos.
This was the first tangible "victory" for the netroots in its struggle for supremacy of the Democratic Party. But I don't bring this up to gloat. Rather, I bring it up to point out how little of the Dean Doomsday Scenario actually played out.
More specifically, the notion that Dean would be a boon to Republican propaganda efforts has completely falled flat. Remember those? Dem insiders were quaking in their shoes, Republicans were salivating at the chance to remind America how far-left and craaazzzyy those Democrats were with Dean at the top.
Yet you don't hear Republicans trying to make hay of Chairman Dean anymore. Why would they? Middle America proved, yet again, that they could give a rat's ass about who runs the political parties, whether it's Dean or the GOP's closeted homosexual robot. And while those early attacks on Dean fell flat with the general American public, Dean supporters responded with cash. Every attack on Dean suddenly became an impromptu DNC fundraisier worth tens of thousands in the bank.
Republicans aren't stupid. They're corrupt, craven, opportunistic and generally unpleasant, but they aren't stupid. So it wasn't long before the anti-Dean attacks ceased. (Well, Liddy Dole includes Dean in her fundraising emails, but given her fundraising performance thus far, even the GOP base couldn't give two shits.)
While the true measure of Dean's success will be the 2008 elections (rebuilding the party takes time, regardless whether we make gains in 2006 or not), the early praise from his fiercest Democratic detractors and the unilateral ceasefire from the Republican side proves that he's not the Scary Liberal Boogeyman many feared he'd be.
Update: Dave Weigel emailed me this:
Apropos of your post about Dean failing as a Republican bogeyman, I wanted to share some context about how the Virginia GOP tried to use Dean in our elections this year. Before Dean was elected, the GOP linked him to Tim Kaine.
The GOP linked Kaine with Dean again as soon as Dean was elected.
The GOP was also quick on the trigger with press releases demanding Tim Kaine respond to Dean's "outrageous" comments. Here's one example.
They kind of gave up on this as the race closed, but it's fun to look back and see how little momentum they got out of this. After all, the Virginia GOP got a ton of mileage in the 90s linking Democrats to Bill Clinton."-Kos on Kos.
Monday, November 28, 2005
''The Democrats get a face''
"No journalist, no human being is truly objective. Most do try to be fair. Let me be upfront: I like and respect Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania. And not only for what he has done -- forsaking the safe harbor of his college student deferment at 19 during the Korean War to enlist in the Marine Corps, then after becoming a husband and the father of three, volunteering at the age of 33 for combat in Vietnam, where he was twice wounded and received the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
I like him, because he has never forgotten where he came from. Long before he retired as a colonel, he had been an enlisted man. He knows that the most important people in the U.S. military are not the generals with their drivers and their fawning attaches, but the sergeants and the junior officers to whom he has always talked directly and whose cause, and their families', he has made his own.
I like him because, having been with him, I know he goes every week to Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Navy Hospital to encourage the young Americans who have lost their limbs, their eyesight, and their youth in the occupation of Iraq. And because, unlike so many of the Washington Warriors sporting their Old Glory pins on their lapels, Jack Murtha goes to the wakes and the funerals of the fallen, whose names he knows and whose families he seeks to console.
I like him because he is very good in his chosen profession, because he fights resourcefully for every available buck, public and private, for his untrendy, lunch-bucket hometown of Johnstown and his district. Don't get me wrong: Jack Murtha is no plaster saint. He has his faults and character defects -- but he is authentic.
My record on predictions is worse than the car-crashing Billy Joel's on driving. Who else guaranteed that a.) the 1998 TV show " Sports Night " would run longer than "Cheers" and b.) President John Kerry would not seek a second term? But I recently got one right, two days before Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., single-handedly transformed the national debate about the wisdom and duration of the commitment of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq.
In a personal interview before his public statement, Murtha spoke passionately about the plight of Marines and soldiers in Iraq "who cannot speak for themselves," of how immediately after U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, attacks on Americans multiplied and American casualties doubled.
On his most recent trip, he found that U.S. "commanders are truly discouraged" and clearly angry. He reported U.S. "generals are living in the palaces" that had been the property of Saddam Hussein's regime. He quoted a poll indicating that 82 percent of Iraqis want the United States out of their country and 45 percent believe that attacks on U.S. troops are justified. It came back always to the Americans in uniform having "become the target of the insurgency."
I predicted that the speech he was about give to would have the same impact on the debate over Iraq that former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite had on February 27, 1968, when he spoke of the near-certainty that "the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." President Lyndon Johnson said: "That's it. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." Murtha did not believe me.
What made it all true was the venality and stupidity of the Republicans. From the personality-challenged White House press secretary accusing him of "surrender" to the clueless, but venomous, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, unaware of his combat record, accusing Murtha of being a " coward," Republicans made Jack Murtha the most prominent Democrat in town.
As one astute Senate Republican aide observed to David Rogers of The Wall Street Journal, "If the House Republicans want to make Jack Murtha the face of the Democratic Party, then Republicans will really be trounced next year."
Congressional Democrats, a large majority of whom need vertebrae transplants and are terrified of taking any position on Iraq, mostly kept their distance from Murtha until they realized that public reaction had swung his way. They then embraced him. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has changed the terms of the national debate, and Democrats should be so lucky as to have Jack Murtha as their party's 2006 face."-Mark Shields, on CNN.com.
I like him, because he has never forgotten where he came from. Long before he retired as a colonel, he had been an enlisted man. He knows that the most important people in the U.S. military are not the generals with their drivers and their fawning attaches, but the sergeants and the junior officers to whom he has always talked directly and whose cause, and their families', he has made his own.
I like him because, having been with him, I know he goes every week to Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Navy Hospital to encourage the young Americans who have lost their limbs, their eyesight, and their youth in the occupation of Iraq. And because, unlike so many of the Washington Warriors sporting their Old Glory pins on their lapels, Jack Murtha goes to the wakes and the funerals of the fallen, whose names he knows and whose families he seeks to console.
I like him because he is very good in his chosen profession, because he fights resourcefully for every available buck, public and private, for his untrendy, lunch-bucket hometown of Johnstown and his district. Don't get me wrong: Jack Murtha is no plaster saint. He has his faults and character defects -- but he is authentic.
My record on predictions is worse than the car-crashing Billy Joel's on driving. Who else guaranteed that a.) the 1998 TV show " Sports Night " would run longer than "Cheers" and b.) President John Kerry would not seek a second term? But I recently got one right, two days before Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., single-handedly transformed the national debate about the wisdom and duration of the commitment of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq.
In a personal interview before his public statement, Murtha spoke passionately about the plight of Marines and soldiers in Iraq "who cannot speak for themselves," of how immediately after U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, attacks on Americans multiplied and American casualties doubled.
On his most recent trip, he found that U.S. "commanders are truly discouraged" and clearly angry. He reported U.S. "generals are living in the palaces" that had been the property of Saddam Hussein's regime. He quoted a poll indicating that 82 percent of Iraqis want the United States out of their country and 45 percent believe that attacks on U.S. troops are justified. It came back always to the Americans in uniform having "become the target of the insurgency."
I predicted that the speech he was about give to would have the same impact on the debate over Iraq that former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite had on February 27, 1968, when he spoke of the near-certainty that "the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." President Lyndon Johnson said: "That's it. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." Murtha did not believe me.
What made it all true was the venality and stupidity of the Republicans. From the personality-challenged White House press secretary accusing him of "surrender" to the clueless, but venomous, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, unaware of his combat record, accusing Murtha of being a " coward," Republicans made Jack Murtha the most prominent Democrat in town.
As one astute Senate Republican aide observed to David Rogers of The Wall Street Journal, "If the House Republicans want to make Jack Murtha the face of the Democratic Party, then Republicans will really be trounced next year."
Congressional Democrats, a large majority of whom need vertebrae transplants and are terrified of taking any position on Iraq, mostly kept their distance from Murtha until they realized that public reaction had swung his way. They then embraced him. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has changed the terms of the national debate, and Democrats should be so lucky as to have Jack Murtha as their party's 2006 face."-Mark Shields, on CNN.com.
''UP IN THE AIR'' (UPDATED)
Seymour Hersch's new article in The New Yorker is making waves for its suggestion that the war in Iraq will become an air war, much like Vietnam did, as the current administration draws down the troop levels. It's a long piece. "ademption" comments on Kos about its main points, for the ADDs like me out there. Update: Crooks and Liars has video and commentary about "Seymour Hersh with Blitzer."
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
''Governor race may set course for nation''
"Lines are drawn as Ohio prepares for '06 showdown; experts say win here may buoy victorious party in battle for White House---Next year's race for Ohio governor hinges on just how much voters care about this year's scandals in Columbus.
Democrats see the Republican troubles as their best chance in more than a decade to reclaim state offices, while Republican candidates are divorcing themselves from the past to maintain their 16-year stronghold. Both sides are predicting an expensive, high-stakes battle that will gather plenty of national attention. And Ohio voters' choice of red state or blue state in 2006 will serve to set the stage for the 2008 presidential race.
Herb Asher, retired political science professor at Ohio State University and an expert in Ohio politics, put it this way: ``The road to the White House in 2008 goes through Ohio in 2006. This will be among the most significant statewide elections in the country. This will be a pitched battle.''
National focus
The troops already are parachuting in. The Democratic National Committee already has paid $500,000 for the salaries of five additional staffers in Columbus -- four field organizers and an extra communications person -- as an investment toward 2008. ``The way we put money in is to pay competent, qualified people from Ohio to be in Ohio for a couple of years,'' said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, now chairman of the DNC. ``We have five people on the ground now. We think we're going to win Ohio top to bottom.''
And like a general preparing for a fight, Dean is planning a visit to Ohio this winter to survey the battleground. ``Politics in Ohio is pretty rotten and I think people are going to want that changed,'' he said."-excerpted from the story in the Akron Beacon Journal (OH).
Democrats see the Republican troubles as their best chance in more than a decade to reclaim state offices, while Republican candidates are divorcing themselves from the past to maintain their 16-year stronghold. Both sides are predicting an expensive, high-stakes battle that will gather plenty of national attention. And Ohio voters' choice of red state or blue state in 2006 will serve to set the stage for the 2008 presidential race.
Herb Asher, retired political science professor at Ohio State University and an expert in Ohio politics, put it this way: ``The road to the White House in 2008 goes through Ohio in 2006. This will be among the most significant statewide elections in the country. This will be a pitched battle.''
National focus
The troops already are parachuting in. The Democratic National Committee already has paid $500,000 for the salaries of five additional staffers in Columbus -- four field organizers and an extra communications person -- as an investment toward 2008. ``The way we put money in is to pay competent, qualified people from Ohio to be in Ohio for a couple of years,'' said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, now chairman of the DNC. ``We have five people on the ground now. We think we're going to win Ohio top to bottom.''
And like a general preparing for a fight, Dean is planning a visit to Ohio this winter to survey the battleground. ``Politics in Ohio is pretty rotten and I think people are going to want that changed,'' he said."-excerpted from the story in the Akron Beacon Journal (OH).
''Gov. Gregoire gives radio address''
"This morning, Governor Christine Gregoire delivered the the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address. It was aired on stations across the nation, including affiliates of ABC, AP, C-SPAN, NBC/Mututal/Westwood One, NPR, UPI, USA, American Urban Radio Network, Armed Forces Radio Network and Standard News Radio.
Here is the text of the governor's address:
"Good morning. This is Washington State Governor Chris Gregoire.
We Americans have much to be thankful for this holiday weekend. We are especially grateful for the courage and patriotism of American men and women serving away from home and overseas, who weren't able to be with their loved ones this Thanksgiving.
As a nation blessed with so many gifts, it is fitting that we also assist those among us who are in need. With record high energy prices, Democratic Governors across the country are helping those who can't afford to heat their homes. In Washington State, I have asked legislators for additional state funding for low-income home energy assistance to keep our neighbors warm.
In New Mexico, Governor Richardson called a special legislative session to help citizens deal with high energy costs, and they're now receiving rebate checks to help cover rising energy costs. Pennsylvania Governor Rendell announced an agreement to build the nation's first waste-coal-to-diesel plant - a project that will reduce energy bills for Pennsylvania's residents and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Democratic Governors are implementing strong, innovative energy policies in our states. We're controlling rising prices and reducing our use of foreign oil by embracing alternative energy sources. For our nation to keep pace with the energy demands of the coming century, we need a comprehensive energy policy - with commitments from the states and federal government.
Sadly, we simply can't rely on the Republican-controlled Congress to create a national energy policy that works.
President Bush and the Republican Congress have the wrong values and the wrong priorities. They continue to cut spending for programs Americans value and need the most.
They are cutting medical care to the most vulnerable. They are cutting education programs and they are putting the dream of a college education out of reach for many people.
Our American values are pretty basic. We want to know their families are safe, that we have access to health care, and that our children can get a good education that will allow them to pursue their career dreams.
But the President and the Republican Congress are out of touch with these values. They are abdicating their responsibility by cutting homelandsecurity, health care and education programs.
It doesn't stop there.
Here in Washington State, the President and Congress have shortchanged the cleanup of the federal government's Hanford nuclear reservation.
The cleanup is the largest in the nation and essential to protecting the environment and economy of the Northwest. But now the Administration is cutting vital funds and is in full retreat from its commitment to clean up the dangerously polluted site.
The Republicans also continue to ignore the dramatic increase in health care costs. In Washington State, I made sure this year that 40,000 children have insurance coverage, and I intend to cover every child by 2010.
Governor Minner of Delaware has launched the first-in-the-nation program to pay for cancer treatment for those who can't afford it. Thanks to Governor Vilsack's leadership, 94 percent of Iowa's children now have health care. And 10 days ago, Illinois became the only state in the nation to offer health care to every single child with the governor's "All Kids" program. These policies are making a real difference for Americans across the country. But we cannot do it alone.
American values are clear. We want a better education for our children, affordable health care, help with skyrocketing heating bills, and good jobs.
Democrats are working to meet those goals. Because we know that together, America can do better.
Thank you and God bless the United States."-from Andrew's post on the Northwest Progressive Institute Blog. Kinda bland and boring, but the substance is good. Remember back in late 2004 when Kerry and Dean and Moveon joined forces with Democrats from all across the country to finance the recount?
Here is the text of the governor's address:
"Good morning. This is Washington State Governor Chris Gregoire.
We Americans have much to be thankful for this holiday weekend. We are especially grateful for the courage and patriotism of American men and women serving away from home and overseas, who weren't able to be with their loved ones this Thanksgiving.
As a nation blessed with so many gifts, it is fitting that we also assist those among us who are in need. With record high energy prices, Democratic Governors across the country are helping those who can't afford to heat their homes. In Washington State, I have asked legislators for additional state funding for low-income home energy assistance to keep our neighbors warm.
In New Mexico, Governor Richardson called a special legislative session to help citizens deal with high energy costs, and they're now receiving rebate checks to help cover rising energy costs. Pennsylvania Governor Rendell announced an agreement to build the nation's first waste-coal-to-diesel plant - a project that will reduce energy bills for Pennsylvania's residents and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Democratic Governors are implementing strong, innovative energy policies in our states. We're controlling rising prices and reducing our use of foreign oil by embracing alternative energy sources. For our nation to keep pace with the energy demands of the coming century, we need a comprehensive energy policy - with commitments from the states and federal government.
Sadly, we simply can't rely on the Republican-controlled Congress to create a national energy policy that works.
President Bush and the Republican Congress have the wrong values and the wrong priorities. They continue to cut spending for programs Americans value and need the most.
They are cutting medical care to the most vulnerable. They are cutting education programs and they are putting the dream of a college education out of reach for many people.
Our American values are pretty basic. We want to know their families are safe, that we have access to health care, and that our children can get a good education that will allow them to pursue their career dreams.
But the President and the Republican Congress are out of touch with these values. They are abdicating their responsibility by cutting homelandsecurity, health care and education programs.
It doesn't stop there.
Here in Washington State, the President and Congress have shortchanged the cleanup of the federal government's Hanford nuclear reservation.
The cleanup is the largest in the nation and essential to protecting the environment and economy of the Northwest. But now the Administration is cutting vital funds and is in full retreat from its commitment to clean up the dangerously polluted site.
The Republicans also continue to ignore the dramatic increase in health care costs. In Washington State, I made sure this year that 40,000 children have insurance coverage, and I intend to cover every child by 2010.
Governor Minner of Delaware has launched the first-in-the-nation program to pay for cancer treatment for those who can't afford it. Thanks to Governor Vilsack's leadership, 94 percent of Iowa's children now have health care. And 10 days ago, Illinois became the only state in the nation to offer health care to every single child with the governor's "All Kids" program. These policies are making a real difference for Americans across the country. But we cannot do it alone.
American values are clear. We want a better education for our children, affordable health care, help with skyrocketing heating bills, and good jobs.
Democrats are working to meet those goals. Because we know that together, America can do better.
Thank you and God bless the United States."-from Andrew's post on the Northwest Progressive Institute Blog. Kinda bland and boring, but the substance is good. Remember back in late 2004 when Kerry and Dean and Moveon joined forces with Democrats from all across the country to finance the recount?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)