U-M will be in compliance of prop 2

Detroit News Online Printer-friendly article page U-M resumes admissions in compliance with Proposal 2 Detroit News Staff The University of Michigan announced this morning that it will no longer consider race and gender when it resumes admitting students today. The announcement ends a weeklong self-imposed admissions moratorium during which university officials worked to bring their admissions process in line with Proposal 2. "As stated in the language of Proposal 2, our admissions and financial aid processes will not discriminate against, nor grant preferential treatment to, any individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin," said U-M Provost Theresa A. Sullivan in written statement released this morning. "Of course, we will recognize exceptions provided in the amendment including one for federally-funded programs." The decision is a change in tone from two months ago, when U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, in a rousing speech at the U-M Diag, questioned the legality of Proposal 2, the amendment banning the use of race and gender preferences in admissions and government hiring and contracting. Now, the university has concluded "the likelihood of securing long-term relief from the federal courts is slim and short-term relief is no longer viable," according to a memo from U-M general counsel sent to U-M university officials. The university still plans to use affirmative action in hiring, because it is a federal contractor, officials have said. According to the memo, U-M will continue to defend itself when sued and believes courts will still have to interpret certain aspects of Proposal 2. Julie Peterson, spokeswoman for U-M, yesterday would not confirm the contents of the memo, but said the university has to weigh the likelihood of a quick legal resolution against the effect the delay would have on the university's ability to enroll students. "The overriding concern at this point is moving forward with enrollment this year in a way that allows us to admit the best possible class," according to the memo from Marvin Krislov, U-M vice president and general counsel, and two U-M attorneys. The passage of the amendment by 58 percent of Michigan voters sparked a heated court battle over the legality and implementation of Proposal 2, particularly in college admissions. On Dec. 19, a federal judge in Detroit granted a request from U-M, Wayne State and Michigan State University to move the effective date of Prop 2 from Dec. 23 to July 1, so they wouldn't have to change admissions and financial aid decisions for incoming students. To do so would be unfair, they argued, because they didn't have time to determine how to yield a "comparably diverse class." However, a three-judge appeals panel on Dec. 29 struck down the delay and effectively forced the universities to immediately comply. The surprise decision prompted U-M to halt admissions "Our overriding concern is enrolling a strong incoming class. ... Additional delays may cause us to lose applicants, or make it harder for us to enroll the outstanding students we have admitted." On Tuesday, By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group, filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The group wants the court to reinstate the six-month delay so universities have time to revise admissions systems "so that black and other minority students will not have their lives altered fundamentally," the appeal says. "We are facing the possibility of re-segregation," said Shanta Driver, national spokeswoman of BAMN. U-M has already admitted about half of its freshman class for fall. The new rules will apply to the remaining fall applicants. Stephen Houdek, father of a 17-year-old applicant to U-M, was heartened by U-M's decision to comply. However, his daughter, Andrea, is no longer interested in the school after she was put on a waiting list when nonwhite friends with lower test scores and grades were admitted, he said. "She's a very principled young lady and she felt she was discriminated against by U-M," said Houdek, noting that she registered at MSU I'm going to say a few things about this story one Jennifer Gratz is one of these brats from the burbs who never experince someone telling them no and she couldn't handle it so she decided in her little mind that's she's going to mess it up for everyone. Now to the racists and losers that voted yes on 2 I got some news for you when you was gitty of the idea of screwing Detroit students take a good look at your daughters matter of fact every young female in your life because you just screwed her future. Because it's not people of color that take seats away from your boys it's the George W. Bush of the world, rich kids with low test scores, low GPAs and their only interest being at the school is to drink until they black out.

Right Wing item of the day.

Detroit News Online Printer-friendly article page Editorial update: Bush must deploy enough troops to win in Iraq P resident Bush only has one opportunity to fix the mess that has become Iraq. We just worry that deploying 20,000 troops -- the reported amount the president is expected to announce tonight -- won't be enough to do the job right. We are encouraged by stepped-up military efforts in the past few days. The goal should be clear: Establish order while not unnecessarily putting soldiers in harm's way. Have a specific mission and deploy enough troops to succeed. This has been a recurring theme from thoughtful U.S. senators like Republican John McCain from Arizona and independent Democrat Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who have not cut and run when the mood of the country toward the war shifted. Their examples of honorable dissent from Bush administration policy make a mockery of knee-jerk opposition from Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to stage grandstanding but nonbinding votes on the commander-in-chief's military moves. The goal is scoring political points and withdrawing quickly from Iraq at any cost -- even if it means leaving behind a less secure Middle East and undermining American interests. If congressional leaders are going to exhibit a reckless disregard for leadership, Bush shouldn't worry about making politically palatable moves. He should call up enough soldiers to succeed. He probably won't get another chance for making corrections. I wonder whomever wrote this mess will ask their kids to join the army just to help dear leader.

House to vote on minimum wage hike

House set to vote on minimum wage hike - Yahoo! News House set to vote on minimum wage hike By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 2 minutes ago Tackling a top priority, House Democrats pushed a $2.10 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage toward passage Wednesday, calling it only a partial restoration of purchasing power for America's lowest-paid workers. As their second bill since taking control of Congress, the Democratic-written legislation would raise the federal wage floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour in three steps over 26 months. The federal wage hasn't budged for 10 years. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., said passing the boost "is simply a matter of doing what's right, what's just, and what's fair." "If the minimum wage had been adjusted with the cost of living on an annual basis since 1968, a minimum wage worker would not be making $5.15, not be making $7.25, would be making $9.05," he said. Organized labor and other supporters pitched the bill as coming to the aid of the working poor. Business groups and other opponents said it could lead to higher prices for goods and services, force small companies to pink-slip existing workers or hire fewer new ones, and crimp profits. "In America we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas. The bill would raise the wage floor in three steps. It would go to $5.85 an hour 60 days after signed into law by the president, to $6.55 an hour a year later, and to $7.25 an hour a year after that. "For 10 years the lowest-paid Americans have been frozen out. They have been working at a federal poverty wage, not a federal minimum wage," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., author of the legislation. President Bush said he supports a wage boost paired with "targeted tax and regulatory relief" to help businesses — which would have to pay for the higher labor costs — stay competitive. As currently written, the House bill doesn't include any such tax or regulatory breaks. House Democrats are denying Republicans any chance to amend the minimum wage bill. Rep. Howard McKeon (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., complained that constituted a "a series of colossal missed opportunities" The Senate is expected to move quickly — perhaps in the next few weeks — on a similar bill. Business groups and some Republican lawmakers, however, hope they will be able to get some business-friendly provisions into the Senate package. The last time the federal minimum wage rose was in 1997. That's the longest stretch without an increase since the minimum wage was established in 1938. Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. The Labor Department says 479,000 workers paid by the hour earned exactly $5.15 in 2005, the most recent estimate available. The federal minimum wage is like a national wage floor, though some people can be paid less under certain circumstances. States can set minimum wages above the federal level; more than two dozen states plus the District of Columbia do. People who are paid the minimum wage tend to be young — under age 25 — never married, more likely to be a woman, a minority and work part time, according to a recent analysis of 2005 data by the Labor Department. If the federal wage does rise in 26 months to $7.25 an hour, about 5.6 million people — 4 percent of the work force — who make less than this would be directly affected, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal leaning group. The group estimates that another 7.4 million workers would benefit indirectly as raising the floor would ripple through the work force. That means higher payroll costs for employers. "It is an economic reality that if the federal minimum wage increases by 41 percent, it will put upward pressure on all labor costs for small businesses, which continue to be the engine of economic growth in the United States," the National Retail Federation complained in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California. The retail group expressed concern about the "lack of balance" in the House bill because it doesn't include other provisions to help ease the economic impact on companies. Many businesses want the pot sweetened, perhaps by faster depreciation or other tax breaks or letting small businesses band together to buy health insurance for their workers. But AFL-CIO President John Sweeney shot back saying: "An increase in pay for America's lowest-paid workers should not have to depend on additional payoffs to business." Both the House and Senate minimum wage bills also would extend the minimum wage — on a separate time table — to employers on the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory. Recent attempts to boost the federal minimum wage had failed when Republicans had control of Congress. But prospects changed after the Nov. 7 midterm elections put Democrats in charge in both the House and Senate. ___ House minimum wage bill HR 2 Senate minimum wage bill S 2 On the Net: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Low support for Iraq buildup

USATODAY.com Poll: Low support for Iraq buildup Nearly half doubt goals achievable By Susan PageUSA TODAY WASHINGTON — President Bush will outline his "new way forward" in Iraq Wednesday to a nation that overwhelmingly opposes sending more U.S. troops and is increasingly skeptical that the war can be won. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a daunting sales job ahead for the White House, which is considering a plan to deploy up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%. Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26%, a record low. "He certainly has the wind in his face," says Michael Franc, a former congressional aide now at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But that's not to say if he were to pursue a change in policy that proved to be successful, that those numbers wouldn't flip." Views of the war will be difficult to change with rhetoric alone, says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. And if the public expresses strong opposition to Bush's plan, he says, Congress "may feel emboldened to exert what control they have to stop or at least make it more difficult for the president to move forward." The survey of 1,004 adults, which has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points, shows Americans pessimistic about the war and inclined to hold Bush responsible. Among key findings: •Nearly half of those surveyed say the United States can't achieve its goals in Iraq regardless of how many troops it sends. One in four say U.S. goals can be achieved only with an increase in troop numbers. •Eight in 10 say the war has gone worse than the Bush administration expected. Of those people, 53% say Bush deserves "a great deal" of blame; 41% place a great deal of blame on Iraqi political leaders. •By 72%-25%, Americans say Bush doesn't have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq. Congressional Democrats fare only a little better: 66%-25%. Even so, Democrats take control of Congress amid a wave of good feeling. By 2-to-1, Americans say they want congressional Democrats, not Bush, to have more influence over the direction of the nation. The president's overall job approval rating is 37%, up 2 percentage points from mid-December. White House spokesman Tony Snow parried with reporters Monday over congressional and public opposition to the idea of sending more troops. "I think the public opinion and public support is a very important part of this, and it is not static," he said. "You know, this is going to be fairly complex, and it's going to take people a little bit of time to think through, and we will spend a lot of time talking about it because it's important to do so." While Bush has often said his war strategy won't be based on polls, three of four Americans say the government's decisions on Iraq ought to be influenced at least a moderate amount by what the public wants. Views on increased troop levels differ sharply by party. Even among Republicans, though, 30% oppose the idea; 67% support it. Independents are against it by nearly 2-to-1. Democrats oppose it, 85%-12%. And there is a yawning gender gap: 69% of women oppose an increase, compared with 52% of men

Shias being hanged for revenge

Telegraph News Shia hostages hanged in streets in revenge for Saddam's execution Shia hostages hanged in streets in revenge for Saddam's executionBy Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad and Damien McElroy Last Updated: 1:56am GMT 09/01/2007 Saddam Hussein's execution has inspired a gruesome cycle of revenge, with scores of Shia Muslims found hanged from lampposts in Baghdad. The residents of the city's Haifa Street will long remember the events of Sunday morning. As shop owners raised their shutters and stall holders set out their stock, three minibuses roared to a halt. Gunmen jumped out and pulled blindfolded prisoners on to the street. Ropes were tied to lampposts and electricity poles. Those hostages who resisted were shot. Others who were still alive had nooses tied around their necks and were then suspended in mid air to choke to death. advertisement All were left hanging, and the victims received little sympathy from those who witnessed the events. "We watched as all these blindfolded men were hung up and some were shot in the head," Imad Atwan, a supermarket worker said. "Altogether there were 23 bodies. We are all Sunni people here so we supported the gunmen. Some of them are the guards of our neighbourhood. "Somebody called the police and the guards waited to shoot at them when they arrived. "Half an hour after the police fled, they came back with the army and took the bodies away." Capt Mohammad Salim, of the interior ministry, said: "We have gathered 102 Shia bodies and believe that 90 per cent of them were taken hostage for Saddam Hussein's execution and then found hanging from poles by ropes." The discoveries were not limited to Haifa Street. People murdered in the same way had been found in Al Doura district and Amriya, in western Baghdad. The interior ministry estimates that 200 Iraqis were taken hostage after Saddam was sentenced to death for ordering the murder of 148 Shia villagers in the city of Dujail after an assassination attempt in the 1980s. "We counted the people from families that reported a phone call claiming their relatives would be killed if Saddam Hussein was hung." With the Iraqi government poised to execute the former dictator's half-brother, Barzan al-Tikriti, and the ex-head of Baghdad's Revolutionary Court, Awad Ahmed al-Bandar, officials expect the rest of the hostages to be executed in similar fashion. At a second trial in Baghdad yesterday, the first order of business saw Judge Mohammed al-Ureybi strike off charges against Saddam for ordering the "Anfal" extermination campaign against Kurdish villagers. When Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majeed – better known as "Chemical Ali" – attempted to read from the Koran in Saddam's memory, the court microphones were turned off. The court heard a tape recording in which the prosecutor claimed "Chemical Ali" vowed to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians. "I will strike them with chemical weapons and kill them all," he said. •Seven children are reported to have died worldwide after seeing video footage of the execution of Saddam, many in "play" hangings. In the latest incident a boy of 12 hanged himself in north-east Saudi Arabia on Sunday, the Al-Hayat newspaper reported. His death followed similar hangings in Yemen, India, Algeria and America. Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright I wonder is this progress Bush is talking about?

Soldier diagnosed with mental problems was allow to serve

Soldier diagnosed with mental problems - Yahoo! News Soldier diagnosed with mental problems By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press An Army private charged with the slaughter of an Iraqi family was diagnosed as a homicidal threat by a military mental health team three months before the attack. Pfc. Steven D. Green was found to have "homicidal ideations" after seeking help from an Army Combat Stress Team in Iraq on Dec. 21, 2005. Green said he was angry about the war, desperate to avenge the death of comrades and driven to kill Iraqi citizens, according to an investigation by The Associated Press. The treatment was several small doses of Seroquel — a drug to regulate his mood — and a directive to get some sleep, according to medical records obtained by the AP. The next day, he returned to duty in the particularly violent stretch of desert in the southern Baghdad suburbs known as the "Triangle of Death." On March 12, 2006, Iraqi police reported a break-in at the home of a family in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles from Baghdad. The intruders shot and killed the father, mother and two young daughters. The older girl, 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, was raped and her body set afire. The carnage first was assumed to be the work of insurgents. That changed in late June when two members of Green's unit told their superiors of suspicions that soldiers were involved in the killings. Now the Army believes Green and four other soldiers are responsible. One of them has confessed and provided information to prosecutors; in testimony at his court-martial, the soldier identified Green as the ringleader. If the charges are true, the attack would be among the most horrific instances of criminal behavior by American troops in the nearly four-year-old war. It also would represent a worst-case scenario for the military's much-criticized practice of keeping mentally and emotionally unfit personnel in the killing fields of Iraq. Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, psychiatry counsel to the Army Surgeon General, would not specifically discuss Green when contacted by The AP. She defended the military's policies regarding the treatment of emotionally or psychologically distressed soldiers. "If unresponsive to treatment and/or a persistent danger to self or others, they will be evacuated," Ritchie told The AP in an e-mail. The 101st Airborne Division also declined to comment, noting it is an open federal case. The Army and the Marines, who have the most personnel on the ground in Iraq, have been faulted for the manner in which troops with mental and emotional difficulties are being treated. Sending troops already in Iraq who have been diagnosed with mental illness back to combat duty — often under medication that has not been prescribed long enough to have provided relief — has been a particular criticism. Green has been charged with the murders and rape and pleaded not guilty in federal court in Kentucky. He is being tried in federal court because his arrest came after he had been discharged from the Army. Three others face the same charges and will be court-martialed. From interviews with people who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by the military to discuss the case, and from viewing the Army's medical and investigative records, the AP also has learned: • Three months passed without Army doctors and clinicians from the Combat Stress Team having any contact with Green. He was summoned for a second examination on March 20, 2006 — eight days after the killing of the family. Green was diagnosed as having an anti-social personality disorder and declared unfit for service. The process of discharging him began a week later and he was sent home. • The Army's own investigation of Green's initial treatment, prompted by concerns he and others would use mental health problems as a defense in trial, is highly critical. Among the most salient findings from a July review of Green's treatment: "Although a safety assessment was conducted, there is no safety plan addressing how Soldier (Green) will keep from acting on his homicidal thoughts." • Lt. Col. Elizabeth Bowler, a psychiatrist and Army reservist from California who took over the Combat Stress Team with Green's unit in January, recommended his discharge after the second examination in March. Yet she wrote a final evaluation that said Green exhibited no traits that would indicate dangerously erratic or homicidal moods, according to documents viewed by The AP. Green deployed to Iraq in September 2005 from Fort Campbell with a battalion from the 101st Airborne Division's 502nd Infantry Regiment. The unit was charged with security operations and assisting Iraqi army units in the "Triangle of Death." Eleven days before Green's first visit with the stress team in December 2005, he and five others were manning a checkpoint when an Iraqi civilian approached, according to testimony in military hearings. The civilian was familiar because of his status as a sometimes informant. He greeted the soldiers warmly before pulling a pistol from his belt and shooting two of them at point-blank range. Green's behavior worsened after that, according to commanders. He was directed to visit doctors a second time. Eight days later, Bowler told commanders that Green was unfit for service, according to documents. The discharge process for Green concluded in May 2006. The Pentagon issued new guidelines in November that prevent personnel with certain pre-existing mental problems from deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Clinicians evaluating whether a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is fit for service are now required to review all medical records. Mental illnesses that are not expected to be resolved in one year will be cause for discharge. The Army's hearings on the family's murder concluded in August. Those who testified put forth this outline of the crime: The plot to rape and kill was hatched as the soldiers hit golf balls at a checkpoint. They had seen the older daughter on patrols in the area. After drinking whiskey bought from Iraqi policemen, they masked their faces and crept through backyards in afternoon daylight to get to the family's home. They knew the family kept a gun in one bedroom for protection. Once in the house, Green herded the father, mother and 5-year-old daughter to another room, closed the door and shot them dead. Green had blood on his clothes and boots when he returned. Green and at least two others took turns raping the other daughter before killing her with the family's AK-47. They set her body on fire with kerosene dumped from a lamp in the kitchen in an effort to hide evidence. Steven Green is in custody at an undisclosed location in Kentucky, according to federal law-enforcement officials. Prosecutors have not said if they will seek the death penalty. Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, 22, of Chambersburg, Pa.; Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, of Barstow, Calif.; and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, 23, of Huffman, Texas, have been charged with rape and murder and await courts-martial. They are in custody at Fort Campbell. Spc. James P. Barker, 24, of Fresno, Calif., pleaded guilty in November as part of an agreement to testify against the others

Advice for our Democratic majority

It's been almost a week since the newly elected Democratic majority took over and I have some advice for them. 1. Keep your nose clean don't even take a free donut, because hacks like Sean Hannity will compare you taking that free donut to Jack Arbharmoff dealings with the last Republican majority. 2. Stand up to Bush, only 30% of this country still like this man so this your chance to be the loyal opposition party. And that 30% wouldn't vote for you anyway. 3. Push issues you know the Republicans hate i.e. minimum wage and stem cell research make the Republicans chose between the will of the majority of America or their limited based of right wing zombies. 4. Stand together the right wing media will focus on the problems of the Democratic party instead the slow death of the Republican party. 5. To keep the majority hell even build it in 2008 expand on the Dean plan.. The Republicans up for re-election in 2008 will avoid Bush like he has crabs so attack his rubber stamps like Lizzy Dole with a attractive Democrat the blue collar folks there can rally around. 6. Don't believe the right wing hype America isn't a country filled with bible thumping, gay hatin, gun lovin, Fox News watchin yahoos they're only the minority. Appeal to that large chuck of America that support the value of the Democratic party.

Bush rush to Armageddon

Consortiumnews.com consortiumnews.com Bush's Rush to Armageddon By Robert ParryJanuary 8, 2007 George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help. On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program. Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria. Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran’s coastline, such as support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation. Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in neoconservative circles, for instance, attending a 2001 awards ceremony at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank dedicated to explaining “the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.” Bush’s personnel changes also come as Israel is reported stepping up preparations for air strikes, possibly including tactical nuclear bombs, to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as the reactor at Natanz, south of Tehran, where enriched uranium is produced. The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that two Israeli air squadrons are training for the mission and “if things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz]. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole.” The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities – at Isfahan and Arak – with conventional bombs. But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago. While some observers believe Israel may be leaking details of its plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that Israel and the Bush administration are seriously preparing for this wider Middle Eastern war. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb an “existential threat” to Israel. After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program for producing energy. Negroponte’s Heresy Whatever Iran’s intent, Negroponte has said U.S. intelligence does not believe Iran could produce a nuclear weapon until next decade. Negroponte’s assessment in April 2006 infuriated neoconservative hardliners who wanted a worst-case scenario on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, much as they pressed for an alarmist view on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Unlike former CIA Director George Tenet, who bent to Bush’s political needs on Iraq, Negroponte stood behind the position of intelligence analysts who cited Iran’s limited progress in refining uranium. “Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.” Some neocons complained that Negroponte was betraying the President. Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a leading figure in the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, called for Negroponte’s firing because of the Iran assessment and his “abysmal personnel decisions” in hiring senior intelligence analysts who were skeptics about Bush’s Iraqi WMD claims. In an article for Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times, Gaffney attacked Negroponte for giving top analytical jobs to Thomas Fingar, who had served as assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, and Kenneth Brill, who was U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which debunked some of the U.S. and British claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Africa. Fingar’s Office of Intelligence and Research had led the dissent against the Iraq WMD case, especially over what turned out to be Bush’s false claims that Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb. “Given this background, is it any wonder that Messrs. Negroponte, Fingar and Brill … gave us the spectacle of absurdly declaring the Iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons?” wrote Gaffney, who was a senior Pentagon official during the Reagan administration. Gaffney also accused Negroponte of giving promotions to “government officials in sensitive positions who actively subvert the President’s policies,” an apparent reference to Fingar and Brill. The neocons have long resented U.S. intelligence assessments that conflict with their policy prescriptions. [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.] In his personnel shakeup, Bush shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-level position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile technocrat, not a strong independent figure. A Freer Hand Negroponte’s departure should give Bush a freer hand if he decides to support attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bush’s neocon advisers fear that if Bush doesn’t act decisively in his remaining two years in office, his successor may lack the political will to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq. As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground. A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006] By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported. “Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said. [New Yorker, July 10, 2006] But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be to delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel’s powerful lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable with the Congress. Attacks on Iran and Syria also would fit with Bush’s desire to counter the growing Shiite influence across the Middle East, which was given an unintended boost by Bush’s ouster of the Sunni-dominated government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The original neocon plan for the Iraq invasion was to use Iraq as a base to force regime change in Syria and Iran, thus dealing strong blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. This regional transformation supposedly would have protected Israel’s northern border and strengthened Israel’s hand in dictating final peace terms to the Palestinians. But the U.S. invasion of Iraq backfired, descending into a sectarian civil war with Iraq’s pro-Iranian Shiite majority gaining the upper hand. In effect, by ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush had eliminated the principal buffer who had been holding the line against the radical Shiites in Iran since 1979. By tipping the strategic balance to the Shiites, Bush also unnerved the Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia. A Nightmare By 2006, the dream of a U.S.-orchestrated transformation of the Middle East had turned into a nightmare of rising Shiite radicalism. To address this unanticipated development, Bush began pondering how best to throttle Shiite expansionism. In summer 2006, Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006] Bush’s advisers also blamed the governments of Syria and Iran for supporting anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq. Yet lacking the military and political capacity to expand the conflict beyond Iraq, the Bush administration turned to Israel and its new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush’s interest in finding a pretext to take Syria and Iran down a notch. That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground campaign against Lebanon. Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict as an opening to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the long-sought “regime change” in Damascus, Israeli sources said. One Israeli source told me that Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered “nuts” by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Wants Wider War.”] In an article on July 30, 2006. the Jerusalem Post also hinted at Bush’s suggestion of a wider war into Syria. “Defense officials told the Post … that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported. In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service added more details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush’s deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. “In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria,” a source told the Inter-Press Service. In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons inside and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq. “If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,” Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web site. “A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. … If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East.” But the Israeli summer offensives in Gaza and Lebanon fell short of Olmert’s objectives, instead generating international condemnation of Tel Aviv for the large numbers of civilian casualties from Israel’s bombing raids. Wounded Leaders Now, as two politically wounded leaders, Bush and Olmert share an interest in trying to salvage some success out of their military setbacks. So, they are looking at possible moves that are much more dramatic than minor adjustments to the status quo. Democrats and some Republicans are questioning why Bush wants to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq and offer Iraqis some jobs programs, when similar tactics have been tried unsuccessfully in the past. Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush’s troop “surge” is to bolster the defenses of Baghdad’s Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites. The two U.S. aircraft carrier strike forces off Iran’s coast could provide further deterrence against Iranian retaliation. But the conflict would almost certainly spread anyway. Likely Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel would offer another pretext for Israel to invade Syria and finally oust Hezbollah’s allies in Damascus, as the U.S. neocons had hope would happen in summer 2006, the source said. In the neoconservative vision, this wider war would offer perhaps a last chance at achieving the regional transformation that has been at the heart of Bush’s strategy of “democratizing” the Middle East through violence if necessary. However, few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want the results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the anti-Americanism that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in late December. An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region’s remaining pro-American dictators in jeopardy, too. In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf, conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from a U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they ultimately don’t believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the plan. But Bush’s actions in the past two months – reaffirming his determination to achieve “victory” in Iraq – suggest that he wants nothing of the “graceful exit” that might come from a de-escalation of the war. Losing Faith Bush has dug in his heels even as some senior administration officials have lost faith in his strategy. On Nov. 6, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo suggesting a “major adjustment” in Iraq War policy that would include “an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases” from 55 to five by July 2007 with remaining U.S. forces only committed to Iraqi areas that request them. “Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province,” Rumsfeld wrote. Proposing an option similar to a plan enunciated by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, Rumsfeld suggested that the commanders “withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions – cities, patrolling, etc. – and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.” And in what could be read as an implicit criticism of Bush’s lofty rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said the administration should “recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) – go minimalist.” [NYT, Dec. 3, 2006] On Nov. 8, two days after the memo and one day after American voters elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Bush fired Rumsfeld. The firing was widely interpreted as a sign that Bush was ready to moderate his position on Iraq, but the evidence now suggests that Bush got rid of Rumsfeld for going wobbly on the war. On Dec. 6, when longtime Bush family counselor James Baker issued a report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urging a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush wasted little time in slapping it down. Instead, Bush talked about waging a long war against Islamic “radicals and extremists,” an escalation from his original post-9/11 goal of defeating “terrorists with global reach.” At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle against Islamists as a test of American manhood and perseverance by demonstrating to the enemy that “they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America.” Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year. “I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent,” Bush said. Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military to wage this long war. “We must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time,” Bush said. “I’m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it’s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. … “We’re in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies – a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.” Escalation Since then, Bush has floated the idea of a troop “surge” and replaced commanders who disagreed with him. Bush also removed U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, a Sunni Muslim generally considered a voice for moderation in U.S. policy who privately objected to Bush’s decision to press ahead with the hanging of Saddam Hussein. There are even indications of tension between Bush and Cheney, who like his old friend Rumsfeld, appears to have grown disillusioned with the war. In a little-noticed comment on Jan. 4, Sen. Joseph Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Cheney and Rumsfeld “are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can’t fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?” [Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2007] But Bush does not appear to share that goal of limiting the damage. Instead, he is looking for ways to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Olmert – and possibly outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair – in expanding the conflict. Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18. Sources say the three leaders are frantically seeking options for turning around their political fortunes as they face harsh judgments from history for their bloody and risky adventures in the Middle East. But there is also a clock ticking. Blair, who now stands to go down in the annals of British history as “Bush’s poodle,” is nearing the end of his tenure, having agreed under pressure from his Labour Party to step down in spring 2007. So, if the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate has any hope of accomplishing the neoconservative remaking of the Middle East, time is running out. Something dramatic must happen soon. That something looks like it may include a rush to Armageddon.

Changing their tune

Selective Amnesia January 15, 2007 IssueCopyright © 2007 The American Conservative Selective Amnesia The pundits who sold the Iraq War change their tune and bury their records. by Glenn Greenwald When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances. Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war. Michael Ledeen, a Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to National Review, chose the boldest option. In response to a Vanity Fair article about the swarms of neoconservatives abandoning the administration and the war as both become increasingly unpopular, Ledeen emphatically denied that he backed the invasion in the first place. Writing on National Review’s blog, The Corner, Ledeen claimed, “I do not feel ‘remorseful,’ since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place.” It is difficult to overstate the audacity—and the mendacity—of Ledeen’s claim. In August 2002, he wrote a scathing article in National Review following an appearance by Brent Scowcroft on “Face the Nation,” in which the former national security adviser argued against the invasion. Ledeen devoted his entire column to mocking Scowcroft’s concerns: It’s always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one’s cherished convictions; it makes one cherish them all the more. … So it’s good news when Scowcroft comes out against the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the terror masters. Declaring that “Saddam is actively supporting al Qaeda, and Abu Nidal, and Hezbollah,” Ledeen wrote, “the Palestinian question can only be addressed effectively once the war against Saddam and his ilk has been won.” In response to Scowcroft’s concern that invading Iraq could “turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror,” Ledeen retorted, “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.” On countless occasions, Ledeen called for the invasion to start as soon as possible. In an August 2002 interview with FrontPage Magazine, when Jamie Glazov asked when the war should begin. Ledeen answered, “Yesterday.” He appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Aug. 19 to complain again that the war had not started: “I think that if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it’s that he’s taken much too long to get on with it, much too long.” The following month, in the Wall Street Journal, Ledeen wrote, “Saddam Hussein is a terrible evil, and President Bush is entirely right in vowing to end his reign of terror. If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support. [I]t is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order.” While it is difficult to be more dishonest than Ledeen, it is difficult to be more wrong than Charles Krauthammer. Prior to the invasion, Krauthammer used his various media platforms—his column at the Washington Post and his almost daily appearances on Fox News—to warn that Iraq was rapidly building up its WMD capabilities and that the U.S. risked running out of time if it did not invade immediately. He assured Americans that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues and that Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators. In an Aug. 26, 2002 Time column, Krauthammer crystallized the issue at the heart of the Iraq discussion: “The growing debate on invading Iraq hinges on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.” In his Washington Post column of Oct. 7, Krauthammer argued, “Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists.” According to Krauthammer, the WMD threat was so imminent that, as he argued on Fox News on Nov. 8, 2002, waiting a matter of months could mean that Saddam obtained nuclear capability: “Under this Resolution, if Blix does not have to report back to the Security Council for 105 days, do the math. That’s the 21st of February. That is a very long time away. And it could be at the end of our window to attack.” In his Nov. 15, Post column, Krauthammer rang the alarm yet again: “We’ve been given time, but so has Hussein. Time to hide his weapons. Time even to distribute them through Iraqi agents—aka diplomats using diplomatic pouches—into the heart of the enemy. (We still don’t know where last year’s anthrax came from.) Time to give the stuff to terrorists who, as Osama bin Laden’s tape suggests, are now prepared to make common cause with Hussein.” Now, as the war he demanded lies in ruins, Krauthammer uses his Post column to revise his record: “Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.” His hysterical obsession with WMD has been whitewashed from his pundit history, and in its place is a goal that Krauthammer barely mentioned prior to the war. As recently as Oct. 28, 2005, he mocked foreign-policy realists for their belief that democracy could not take root in Iraqi culture, insisting that “the overwhelming majority of Iraq’s people have repeatedly given every indication of valuing their newfound freedom.” But now, Krauthammer claims that the war he urged is failing because Iraqis are incapable of understanding what freedom is about: [T]he problem here is Iraq’s particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein’s totalitarianism. Is this America’s fault? No. It is a result of Iraq’s first democratic election. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not. That the failed war is the Iraqis’ fault has become a leading neoconservative excuse. On Nov. 3, Paul Mirgenoff of the Powerline blog blamed the Iraqis for electing the wrong prime minister— “The Iraqis voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Maliki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.” But in April, Mirgenoff lavished the Iraqis with praise for that very choice, with his “acknowledgement that the selection of Jawad al-Maliki to be Iraq’s prime minister is good news” because Iraqis were “resisting Iranian pressure to back Ibrahim al-Jafari” and thus “stood up for a unified Iraq.” This is common practice in the world of punditry: most war advocates continue to parade around as foreign-policy experts even though, with the rarest exception—an Andrew Sullivan here or there—virtually none has acknowledged his error. The dynamic is also evident among former Bush supporters now trying to distance themselves from the unpopular president. Many who loyally supported and even venerated Bush when he was riding high now pretend to have recognized his flaws all along. In her Oct. 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan tried to demonstrate how intellectually honest she is by claiming that well-connected Republicans thought the GOP deserved to lose the midterm election. For the party’s woes, she blamed the president: “They want to fire Congress because they can’t fire President Bush.” Trying to explain Republican dissatisfaction, she wrote: Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they’re tough on incompetence. They see Mr. Bush through the eyes of experience and maturity. They hate a lack of care. They see Mr. Bush as careless, and on more than Iraq—careless with old alliances, disrespectful of the opinion of mankind. ‘He never listens,’ an elected official who is a Bush supporter said with a shrug some months ago. Along the way the president’s men and women confused the necessary and legitimate disciplining of a coalition with weird and excessive attempts to silence Republican critics. They have lived in a closed system. They now want to open it but don’t know how. Listening is a habit; theirs has long been to suppress. But in early 2004, when arguing for President Bush’s re-election, Noonan employed her trademark effusiveness to glorify the president’s character and pay homage to his humility and great sense of responsibility: Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He’s normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He’s not exotic. But if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help. He’ll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, ‘Where’s Sally?’ He’s responsible. He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, ‘I warned Joe about that furnace.’ And, ‘Does Joe have children?’ And ‘I saw a fire once’ ... Bush ain’t that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain’t that guy. Americans love the guy who ain’t that guy So in just over two years, Bush went from being a diligent Everyman to a know-it-all tyrant who listens to no one, stamps out dissent, and is irresponsible with his duties. Noonan now depicts Bush in this way while pretending that she never oozed praise. But her reversal isn’t as brazen as the pro-war, pro-Bush pundits who have begun advocating the very views they spent the last three years demonizing. Ever since the U.S. invaded, those who pointed out that we were achieving little more than mass death, destruction of American credibility, conversions of moderate Muslims into extremists, and a serious weakening of our military were vilified as America-hating terrorist allies who wanted us to lose. Those who simply pointed out that the war effort wasn’t going according to promise were derided as cut-and-run “defeatocrats” who lacked the intestinal fortitude to fight. Yet pundits who equated dissent with treason are now declaring the war to be a failure and are advocating withdrawal without bothering to reconcile their current views with their previous allegations. New York Post columnist Ralph Peters wrote in November 2005 that a failure to see the mission through to completion would tell the world that “Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.” He further argued that “a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower” and that “[i]f we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.” But on Nov. 2, 2006, Peters wrote a column in USA Today announcing, “Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave.” The same columnist who warned just a year ago in the most alarmist tone that withdrawal would gravely endanger the U.S., now claims that “Contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn’t be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that.” All of these self-proclaimed super-patriots who spent the last three years shrieking that anyone who criticizes the war is a friend of the terrorists are now being forced to admit that the war is unwinnable. But rather than acknowledging their reversal, they seek to erase the public record, both to salvage their reputations and to obscure the intensity of their attacks against those who were right. Such vitriol against critics muted debate in the first place and ensured that we stayed in Iraq, pretending all along that things were going great. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one’s errors and changing one’s mind. When genuine, this should be encouraged. But these pundits are not doing that. They know that they were on the wrong side of the most vital issue of the last decade, and in trying to reverse their predictions reveal themselves to be deeply flawed not only in judgment but also in character. _______________________________ Glenn Greenwald is author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From the Bush Administration.

Iraqi war was all about the oil? no get out of here

Independent Online Edition > Middle East Future of Iraq: The spoils of war How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb Published: 07 January 2007 Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972. The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said. Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled. Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty. Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil." Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals. Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal." Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March. Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates. James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire." Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."

The end of right wing talk?

American Politics Journal — What About ME?! 2006 Right Wing Talk: The Slide Continuesby Steve Young Dec. 31, 2006 -- Hollywood (apj.us) -- If I might borrow and mangle from Stealer's Wheel, you could sum up the Lords of Loud year as "Clowns to the Right of me, Jokers to the Right. Here I am America, stuck in the middle with YOU." Not them. You. Thank you, God. Yet with the Lords of Loud running out of any semblance of credibility, the Liberal Mainstream Media™ still did all they could to FOX News themselves. Katie Couric brought on Rush Limbaugh to "speak out." The Today Show booked Bill O'Reilly regularly to comment on world doings. CNN Headline News embarrassed themselves by hiring Glenn Beck, who didn't disappoint by, among other things, asking a United States congressman to prove he wasn't with the enemy. Still, it was a frustrating year for the right-wing Lords of Loud. They tried and tried to explain why an administration that was driving a bus off a cliff, repeatedly, should be given another chance. They tried, oh Lordie how they tried, to demonize the candidates you ended up voting for. But the strongest weapon they had -- the catchphrase -- was working for them about as well as it was working for President Bush. "San Francisco Values," and "Undermining Our Troops" didn't seem to scare America as much as the Lords-o'-Loud values that propped up bigots while dismissing corruption that undermined their listeners. Any essence of fair and balanced or something within a mile of the smell of truth dissolved into an blatant (how it didn't come across as obvious for years escapes me) bid to con the voter when President Bush pulled the Lords of Loud into a last-minute, pre-election, secret-super-special White House propaganda meeting to hear what they could do to help push the Iraq War and the Republican candidates down the throat of the American public. Scapegoating Democrats for any and all lack of success in Iraq revealed a emphatic disregard for the lives of our troops and our soldiers' families. Concern for real options to stop the bloodshed was far outweighed by election of failed legislators and book sales. Holding up a get-out-the-vote-for-Lieberman effort as an example of their interest in voting in the best man was a thinly-veiled attempt to "Stay the Bush Course." But the sins of the LOL were many more than their bloodlust for far right power over sanity. O'Reilly may have passed Ann Coulter as the LOL joke of the Republican Party as there wasn't a War he was adverse to self-promote. War on Christmas. War on Culture. War Against San Francisco Values. War Against Anyone Who Labeled Him A Right Winger Because He's An Independent. War Against Newspapers Who Didn't Write Something Positive About Him. War Against Humility. Bill's believability-Q would have hit clown level in 2006 -- except that even the unfunniest clowns have a minimal sense of decency. He actually pitched his book to President Bush during a "serious" White House interview. He continued his "hit" job on the left, sure to drop in "it happens on the right, too," while, other than a fly swat at Michael Savage, never coming close to truly examining just how the right "happens." Hypocrisy's limits were eclipsed by this man who wouldn't pass up an opportunity to pat himself on the back, embellish his over-the-top machismo while paying out big time bucks to make a sexual harassment lawsuit go away, yet still tout himself to be a "Culture Warrior." As if his "Factor for Kids" wasn't enough to bring up last night's dinner. Really, folks! A guy who decries personal attacks while personally attacking any and all he disdains can't be anything more than a bad joke, yet as bad as he's been, Bill's believability-Q hit clown level -- except that clowns have a sense of decency. Bill actually pitched his book to President Bush during a "serious" White House interview. Though at the top (bottom) of the heap, Bill had plenty of company. Rush Limbaugh made a fool of himself -- again -- this time blowing whatever chance his side had of debating the stem-cell issue intelligently by ridiculing Michael Fox's illness. In an amazing show of underestimation of his capability to shoot himself in the foot, his demeaning impression beamed evidence of (admitted personal attack warning ahead) El Rushbo's inability to push away from the table. In a lapse of of his standard mendacity he admitted his mid-term election Goering-ness by "Carrying water for those who didn't deserve it." For good measure he acknowledged that he had learned all he needed to know about a woman from watching cats. Sean Hannity continued his repetitious litanizing lists of litany for the pure sake of litany, never seeming to realize that every Republican he backed lost. Laura Ingraham thought that American journalists should try going past their hotel room balcony, while her views never saw past her ideology. Dennis Prager felt that Glenn Beck's admonitions weren't sufficient, demanding the same Muslim congressman to forsake his own holy book for "America's." Michael Savage just continued being Michael Savage. 'Nuff said. 2006 wasn't very pretty for the Blowhards of Broadcast, and 2007 should be even worse. The Catch-22 for O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and company is that they need to change. But that would take acceptance of who and what they are and that would only end up placing them into a delightful free fall. And with suckers born no more than every minute -- not enough to replace the ones who have wised up -- by 2008, these Lords of Loud will be one of the main driving forces to bring a Democrat into the White House. Ain't watching what goes around coming around wonderful. # I believe right wing talk in this country is all but done there's only three right wing talk show host that actually bring in ratings the other shows like a Dennis Prager or even Glenn Beck a WNBA game gain higher ratings than either of those two combine. And when the big three of right wing talk hit hard times you know the lesser right wing talkers are barley keeping a float in the ratings war. Sure they still have followers and people that would recite them word for word in a debate but those people are shirking and for the 2008 election who can these right wing talk show hosts get their sheep to rally behind? And how much the American public stand for unwarrant attacks on Barack or Hillary?

Dems take action

Democrats Take Control on Hill - washingtonpost.com Democrats Take Control on HillNew Speaker Pelosi Shepherds Ethics Bills To Passage in House By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, January 5, 2007; A01 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was elected America's first female speaker of the House yesterday in a raucous, bipartisan celebration of a historic breakthrough, and hours later she presided over passage of the broadest ethics and lobbying revision since the Watergate era. Democrats took control of the House and Senate after 12 years of nearly unbroken Republican rule, with resolute calls for bipartisan comity and a pledge to move quickly on an agenda of health-care, homeland security, education and energy proposals. Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the soft-spoken son of a hard-rock miner, took the helm of the Senate, after a closed-door session in the Capitol's stately Old Senate Chamber. But with the eyes of history riveted on her, it was Pelosi's day. "This is an historic moment, for Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years," Pelosi proclaimed, to a roaring ovation in the packed House chamber. "For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. To our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit." For Pelosi, yesterday's election was not only the culmination of a long climb by women through the ranks of Congress but also the personal triumph of a hard-nosed partisan, a grandmother of six who methodically plotted the Democrats' return to power after more than a decade in the minority. A House floor where Democrats had been marginalized to the point of irrelevance in recent years was alive with handshakes, smiles, hugs and boisterous children on the Democratic side of the aisle. Republicans, once so confident in what many saw as a permanent majority, sat glumly watching the festivities. As Pelosi entered the chamber before her formal, party-line election, the House erupted in bipartisan applause. Only Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), the outgoing chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, remained seated in stony silence. Pelosi's predecessor as speaker, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), sat quietly and unobtrusively in the rear of the chamber, except for one brief moment of recognition. When House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) rose to present the gavel to the new speaker, he was magnanimous in acknowledging both the roots of Republican defeat last November and the historic import of the moment. "In a few moments, I'll have the high privilege of handing the gavel of the House of Representatives to a woman for the first time in American history," he told his fellow lawmakers. "Whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or an independent, this is a cause for celebration." He concluded with a warning for Democrats, gleaned from his party's pursuit of power and the lessons learned from defeat: "If there is one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this: A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of a majority lies not in the chance to wield great power but in the chance to do great things." In what must be another first, the gavel changed hands with a hug and a kiss. In the Senate chamber, members lined up in groups of four to take their oaths with Vice President Cheney. Former senators, including Democrats John Breaux (La.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and Jean Carnahan (Mo.), circulated on the floor to offer congratulations. Outgoing Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), now retired from the Senate, joked with Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) as the Democratic presidential prospect worked his way through the crowd. Family members crowded the surrounding corridors, including former president Bill Clinton. Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) shouted "Praise Jesus!" during the opening prayer. The Senate will plunge into its own ethics and lobbying overhaul package next week, then take up legislation to boost the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade. But it was clear yesterday that the Senate would have no choice but to take a more deliberative approach to the issues the House plans to bulldoze through. Senate leaders pledged bipartisanship, and in a chamber divided 51 to 49 , they will have no choice. "Now, I know that you're not accustomed, members of the press, to people getting along, working together," Reid told reporters after the closed-door Senate meeting in the morning. "But Senator McConnell and I believe this is a new day in Washington." Reid nodded to his GOP counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "I think Harry's got it right," McConnell said. The Senate margin is even more tenuous because Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is sidelined after emergency brain surgery. Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster. A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause. "Nobody over here talked about that at all," said Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell. In the House, Democrats did not skip a beat between formally taking control and getting to work on what they have called their hundred-hours agenda. Last night, the House nearly unanimously approved a broad package of internal rules changes designed to sever the cozy links that have developed between lawmakers and lobbyists. The changes would prohibit House members or employees from knowingly accepting gifts or travel from a registered lobbyist, foreign agent or lobbyist's client. Lawmakers could no longer fly on corporate jets. In addition, congressional travel financed by outside groups would have to be approved in advance by the House ethics committee and immediately disclosed to the public. The measures were approved 430 to 1, with only Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) voting against it. This was a remarkable change considering that House Republicans could barely pass a far weaker measure last May and ultimately did not enact any measure because they could not reach agreement with the Senate. But voters in November identified corruption as one of their primary concerns, and the House responded yesterday. "It's amazing what an election will do," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). Today, Democrats hope to pass new rules to promote open deliberations in the House, rein in special-interest spending and lawmaker pet projects, and prohibit passage of spending or tax measures that increase the federal deficit. Over the next two weeks, Democrats in the House plan to enact new homeland security measures, increase the minimum wage, allow federally funded stem cell research, permit the federal government to negotiate lower prescription-drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cut student-loan interest rates and fund alternative-energy research by rolling back tax breaks for oil companies. But Pelosi herself acknowledged that her carefully constructed consensus agenda will not satisfy the angry electorate that swept the Democrats to power. Democrats will have to confront President Bush on the larger, more controversial issues of the day: the war in Iraq, military tribunals that suspend the legal rights of terrorism suspects, and warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency. Her call yesterday for a new direction in Iraq "that allows us to responsibly redeploy American forces" elicited strong applause in her party while clearly splitting Republicans, many of whom joined the ovation. Reid also saw Iraq as the issue of the day and a possible impediment to Democratic plans. "Iraq is where it is," Reid said. He added: "We're not going to divert our attention from what needs to be accomplished for this country. There are a lot of things that need to be accomplished. And we're going to work on those, in spite of Iraq." To make it clear that such issues will have to be addressed, Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) reintroduced legislation on the new Congress's first day to mandate that NSA surveillance once again involve a warrant from a secret federal court. "There's a long list where Congress has been abdicating their responsibility, and I suspect the leadership and the chairs will have to quickly get to work," Schiff said. Democrats are already having trouble reconciling their promises even for the initial hundred-hour blitz. Senior House Democratic aides said a promise to cut student-loan interest rates in half will have to be phased in over five years to comply with a pledge to offset any additional deficit spending with equal spending cuts or tax hikes. The loan pledge is proving just too expensive, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's senior Republican, Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) introduced legislation yesterday to immediately repeal the alternative minimum tax. That proposal would cost the Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars.

More good news from Iraq oh wait

Sunnis eye reckoning with head Iraq Shia - Yahoo! News Sunnis eye reckoning with head Iraq Shia By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago A prominent Sunni Arab group charged Friday that some officials in the Iraqi government have links with Shiite militias involved in sectarian violence and said authorities should be held responsible for any attacks by the armed groups. The Iraqi government said the group's claims were false and could incite rebellion. In Washington, President Bush was shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in Iraq as he prepared to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years. Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because formal announcements are still pending Bush next week will unveil his strategy, which is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military approach, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. forces, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to the Baghdad capital alone. "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished," Bush said Thursday. Lawmakers said Thursday in Washington they were skeptical of such a plan. But others see more value in a larger force. "No commander can have enough troops," British Army Maj. Gen. Simon Mayall, second in command of coalition forces in Iraq, told reporters at the Pentagon Friday. French President Jacques Chirac, meanwhile, said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq destabilized the entire Middle East and caused terrorism to spread, adding that the problems in Iraq justified France's strong opposition to the war. "As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose effects have not yet finished unraveling," Chirac said Friday in his New Year's message to French ambassadors. Police in the southern city of Basra reported that an American civilian and two Iraqis were abducted Friday, according to Voices of Iraq, an independent news agency. The U.S. Embassy said it was investigating the report. A Sunni clerical group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, said it had obtained information that militias were planning to attack neighborhoods in Baghdad, in line with bloody assaults this year pitting members of Iraq's majority Shiites against Sunni Arabs who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein. "We also have come to know that some officials in this government know of this criminal scheme, which raises suspicions that they are collaborating with these militias," the association said. "The Association of Muslim Scholars holds the current Iraqi government and the occupation forces responsible for any injustice against Iraqi people," said the group, which is believed to have links to the Sunni Arab-led insurgency fighting government and U.S.-led forces. A significant portion of the Iraqi national police is believed to be aligned with militias, and U.S. officials have said efforts are under way to weed out corrupt security agents. The office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the Sunni group's statement was wrong. "What has been written in the statement of the Association of Muslim Scholars is absolutely incorrect and it could provoke sedition," al-Maliki's office said. "We hold the association responsible for anything that could happen as a result of this." In Washington, Bush said Thursday that he wished Saddam's execution "had gone in a more dignified way," referring to the unruly scene in the execution chamber — recorded on a cell phone camera — during the hanging of the deposed president Dec. 30. Bush said he spoke with al-Maliki about Saddam's last moments on a secure video hookup. The two leaders also discussed Iraq's violence, and Bush said he would announce next week his decisions about how to proceed with the war. The defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, and that Casey's replacement would be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces. Giving Fallon and Petraeus the top military posts in the Middle East would help Bush assert that he is taking a fresh approach in the region. Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of boosting troop strength in Iraq. A senior administration official said Bush would nominate Zalmay Khalilzad, the outspoken U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as the U.S. envoy to the United Nations. He would replace John Bolton, whose appointment to the U.N. job expired recently. Khalilzad, who was born in Afghanistan, is likely to be replaced in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, a veteran American diplomat, said the official, who agreed to discuss the matter only if not quoted by name because he was not authorized to make an announcement for the White House. On Friday, mortar rounds killed four civilians on Baghdad's outskirts, and gunmen attacked an Iraqi army checkpoint north of the capital, killing four soldiers. The mortar attack occurred in the Shiite neighborhood of Zaafaraniyah, nine miles southeast of the center of Baghdad, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media. The attack killed four civilians and injured 11, he said. The Iraqi soldiers were killed at dawn at a checkpoint in Duluiyah, 45 miles north of Baghdad, according to the joint operations office of Salahuddin province. Three other soldiers were wounded. Also Friday, clashes broke out between Sunni Arab and Shiite militants in Baghdad's mixed western Amil district, minutes after a mortar round hit a house in a Sunni neighborhood, injuring five civilians, police said. One Shiite militiaman was killed and three others were wounded. The fighting ended when U.S. and Iraqi forces arrived, police said. Police agents from the Interior Ministry detained three Iraqi insurgents linked to al-Qaida during a raid in Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, police Capt. Muthana Khalid said. Separately, Iraqi troops captured four murder suspects in an operation Wednesday in Sadr City, a poor Shiite area in eastern Baghdad where militias have a strong presence, the U.S. military said. The suspects were believed to be "leaders of a kidnapping and murder cell responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians," and were suspected of directing mortar attacks linked to Baghdad's sectarian war, the military said. Also Friday, bomb stashed in a garbage can at a market exploded, shaking parts of central Baghdad, but police said there were no reports of injuries. ___ AP Military Writer Robert Burns in Washington and AP reporter Christine Ollivier in Paris contributed to this report.

Raw Story: Bush replaces general who opposed his troop surge plan

The Raw Story 'Clean sweep': Bush replaces top general in Middle East who opposed troop surge 'Clean sweep': Bush replaces top general in Middle East who opposed troop surge 01/04/2007 @ 4:23 pmFiled by RAW STORY In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top general in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air. Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq, but the circumstances of his early departure are unclear. "The president wants a clean sweep," an official told ABC News. "Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual," ABC reports. According to a Kansas City Star article published December 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq, David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world." The LA Times recently reported that Abizaid's departure could clear the way for a more aggressive strategy in Iraq. Excerpts from LA Times article: # Abizaid's planned departure clears the way for new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to recommend his own commander, a decision current and former Defense officials say is nearly as important as the new administration strategy expected to be unveiled by Bush in January. These officials said Gates faces a clear choice between generals who have agreed with Abizaid's push to quickly hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces and a small but increasingly influential coterie of officers backing a more aggressive U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign. According to Defense officials, Abizaid submitted his retirement documents just over a month ago, shortly before Donald H. Rumsfeld was pushed out as Defense secretary. One recently retired Army general said Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but that Rumsfeld blocked the move, insisting his war commanders stay in place. "Going to war isn't like having a regular job," said the retired general, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity because Abizaid's plans had not been made public. "It's extremely stressful, it's heavily responsible. I can understand why he'd want to retire." # DEVELOPING...

Nancy Pelosi to America: expect results from the Dems

Pelosi vows big results from Democrats - Yahoo! News Pelosi vows big results from Democrats By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago Newly minted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged Friday that voters would see big results from the Democratic majority in Congress. "It's going to be wonderful for the American people," she said. "It's such an exciting thing — we've come a long way," an elated Pelosi said at an open house breakfast on Capitol Hill where hundreds of supporters cheered her election as the first woman ever to serve as House speaker, two steps from the presidency. Pelosi, sworn-in on Thursday, presides over the first Democratic majority since 1994. Several women in the crowd said they viewed the elevation of the 66-year-old San Francisco Democrat, a mother of five and grandmother of six, as just the beginning. "It prepares the nation to receive a woman president, a female president — that's the ice that's been broken," said Ethel Byndom, 53, of St. Louis, Mo. "I think it's just really allowing us to have some additional influence. We're way behind Europe," said Lilly Stanets, director of the San Francisco Maritime Museum. Pelosi took leave of the crowd, saying she had to go back to work on the House floor, where Democrats were getting to work on her legislative agenda for the House's first 100 hours with a planned vote on a "pay as you go" budgeting measure. Later Friday, the final of three days of festivities Pelosi orchestrated to introduce herself to the nation, she was to head to her native Baltimore to visit statues of her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, the city's former mayor. A ceremony was scheduled to rename a part of her childhood street in the city's Little Italy after her, as Via Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi. The week's events also included Catholic Masses and dinner at the Italian Embassy as Pelosi highlighted her ethnic, family and religious background more than her California liberal politics. Crooner Tony Bennett provided the week's soundtrack at a $1,000-a-head fundraiser Thursday night for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: "I Left My Heart in San Francisco." As she had earlier Thursday after accepting the speaker's gavel from House Republican leader John Boehner, Pelosi thanked her husband, investor Paul Pelosi, and the rest of her family for helping her move "from the kitchen to the Congress." "I guess it hasn't really fully landed that I am the person who carries a great deal of responsibility," she acknowledged, "because we have always been a team effort." Pelosi kept her family close throughout the day Thursday, bringing her grandchildren onto the House floor where they took turns sitting in her lap as the roll was called sealing her election by a vote of 233-202, the chamber's Democratic-Republican breakdown. Pelosi's daughter Alexandra told the Thursday night gala that her hard-charging mother, who ran for Congress only in 1987 after moving to San Francisco and raising her children, was never ordinary. She multitasked, made elaborate Halloween costumes by hand and hosted birthday parties where children built life-size gingerbread houses. "Everybody's coming up to me and saying, 'Can you believe your mother is speaker of the House?'" said Alexandra Pelosi. "And to anyone who's been to my house, the answer is: 'Of course!'" ___ On the Net: Pelosi site: http://www.house.gov/pelosi

Motor City Liberal Person of 2006

Jennifer Granholm:

This is one tough little lady here, forget the 14 point beatdown she gave the Amway Dick and let's go back to 2006 for a bit to recap what Guv Jen was facing. In Dick DeVos who was light on substance manage to flood the airwaves with non stop attack ads on top of the Amway Dick blitz the media to be more correct the Detroit News echo Amway Dick talking point of how much Michigan sucks and how it was Granholm I'm amazed Nolan Finley didn't blame Granholm for the Lions picking Matt Millen. It was that kind of election if it snow in May Dick DeVos will have a ad of a woman saying "Granholm promised warmed weather today, what happen?" and the Detroit "News" will talk about how Granholm should be prepare for snow in the spring. What sealed up Granholm for the person of the year award is how she fought back against the Amway Dick it had shades of Ali's rope a dope, as she took Amway Dick's best shots in the summer months and manage to hang out long enough to land painful body blows on the Amway one in the fall. To make matter worst for the Amway one she defeated him soundly in each of the debates they had, so bad for the Amway one he had to wear glasses to the final debate. So friends raise a cold one for Guv Jen who proves money can't buy you everything.