IowaPolitics.com BlogWatch

That old bromide about the weather - everybody talks about it, but
nobody ever does anything about it - could just as easily be applied
to Iraq, and particularly with regard to the deadlocked United States
Senate throughout 2007. That all shifted significantly today with the
Senate's overwhelming passage of the Biden amendment to the FY2008
Defense Authorization Act. The amendment lays out Biden's vision for a
political settlement in Iraq based on a federal system of a three-way
partition of the country into semi-autonomous sectarian regions. The
regions, one each for Iraq's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish populations,
would have direct control over local matters like law enforcement and
jobs, with a weakened central government in Baghdad controlling
national matters like border security, foreign policy and the
distribution of oil revenues.

Labels: Iraq, Joe_Biden

With the 52-47 vote the other day in the Senate to stop the filibuster
by Republicans on the war, we have got to ask ourselves what can be
done to let those members of Congress know that we will hold them
accountable on election day. It is clear that they are unable to see
that many voters were serious last year about ending this war. Anyone
who has been paying attention realizes that there is no good way for
us to extricate ourselves. The truth is, there will likely be more
bloodshed when we leave, because Iraq, largely due to our actions, is
and will be in a civil war. Our exit strategy needs to include
international or regional humanitarian aid for Iraq. Many Iraqis are
likely to seek asylum and we should do everything in our power to
address that need. Beyond that, some of our troops need to be
redeployed in Afghanistan with the international coalition that is
still there to finish the mission (Remember Osama Bin Laden?) there
and the rest, to come home. We are past the idea of "cutting and
running"--we need to cut our losses and make it possible for Iraq to
stabilize itself.

Labels: Iraq

(Sen. Harkin gives us the low-down from the Capitol. Leave your
comments and his campaign will try to get to them as soon as
possible--if you haven't noticed, they're a bit busy up there. -
promoted by Chris Woods) Earlier tonight, I stood on the floor of the
Senate to show my support for our men and women in uniform by trying
to bring them home. As you know, the Senate held a rare all-night
session because Republicans are filibustering our efforts to get an up
or down vote on re-deploying our troops out of Iraq. It's that simple.
In an extraordinary display of fealty to President Bush and his failed
Iraq policy, Republicans are literally refusing to allow a vote on an
amendment to bring home our soldiers and reduce the U.S. involvement
in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where every Senator
stands on the most important issue facing Congress. We must not allow
Republicans to block an up or down vote with procedural semantics. I
wanted to make sure my colleagues knew where Iowans stand on the
issue. So earlier tonight, while on the floor, I read some letters
that I have received from Iowans, including Iowa soldiers and their
families.

Labels: Iraq, Tom_Harkin

It's on. Unfortunately, life on the road this week will get me to bed
long before its over, but the debate thus far has been actually most
enlightening. It also profiles the vast differences between the
President and Senators and the differences among the quality of
Senators. Thus far I've seen: Diane Feinstein. Her objection was
primarily that combat in Iraq was killing Californians, and presumably
the sons and daughters of other states as well, and was monetarily
expensive. Feinstein made no mention of the cost of defeat in Iraq.
Feinstein says Iraq has angered the Islamic world against the United
States. Had we invaded Iraq or based the military in Saudi Arabia in
1979 when the Islamofascists first attacked the US directly by seizing
the American Embassy in Iran? At least Feinstein cited real statistics
and told no lies. Lamar Alexander. Lamar spent his time talking about
bi-partisanship and urging adoption of the Baker Hamilton Report.
While supporting the Constitutional authority of the President Lamar
wants the country to come together around a bi-partisan Iraq plan.

Labels: Iraq

This morning's Des Moines Register Iraq headline provides evidence of
two very important Republican arguments in such a limpid manner that
it would be commentary malpractice to ignore it. The headline screams,
"Officials report massacre in Diyala". Remembering my limited
education in journalism I have always thought that the headline was
supposed to capture the most significant information in the story. If
a news source is committed to reporting objective news, would the
repetition of a daily occurrence be worthy of a headline? Terrorists
commit massacres every day in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else they
operate. The commission of yet another "massacre" is, sadly, a routine
event in the Age of Terror. News worthy? Of course. Headline material?
Only if the purpose of the headline is to hammer the public with the
senseless brutality of war and not to provide useful information to
the public.

Labels: Iraq

(Please welcome Senator Tom Harkin to Bleeding Heartland. Leave him
some comments and let him know that you'll help him out. - promoted by
Chris Woods). As many in the progressive blogosphere are already
aware, the Senate has been debating the National Defense Authorization
Act, which will set military policy for the coming fiscal year. My
Democratic colleagues and I -- as well as a few but growing number of
Republicans -- are determined to take this opportunity to demand
fairer treatment of our troops and force President Bush to listen to
the will of the American people and change course in the war in Iraq.
Yesterday, the first amendment to the defense bill was authored by
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Senator Webb's troop-protection
amendment would have required that active-duty troops receive as much
time at home - recuperating and retraining - as they spend in combat,
while giving the president the authority to waive these requirements
if additional troops are needed in an emergency. I was proud to
co-sponsor Senator Webb's legislation because I felt that it was time
to bring the systematic abuse of our re-deploying troops to an end.

Labels: Iraq, Tom_Harkin

Organizers of Tuesday's Missing May Day peace events in downtown Iowa City had energy beyond numbers. It was a "spiritual event," said one speaker and the message was simple: end the war now - no deadlines, no conditions - now, was the call of the day. ... The only politician sighted earlier in the day was Supervisor Rod Sullivan. (Reportedly, another elected person stumbled onto the event inadvertently and walked through the Ped Mall as quickly and as far from the event as possible. I didn't see it but it makes a good story anyway, as complaints about the rarity of elected Democrats at peace events are murmuring in the Iowa City peace community.) The Obama and Edwards campaigns had a presence, as did the Greens. The counter presence was anonymous. Downtown Iowa City kiosks (infamous in the late `90s for their five-figure price tag) were papered with red white and blue flyers: "Support Our TROOPS = Support the MISSION!"

Labels: Iraq

By a vote of 218 to 208, Rep. Dave Loebsack, his fellow Democrats, and two Republicans passed the supplemental bill which returns to the senate for a vote before going to the White House where it is expected that President Bush will veto it. From AP: The House last night brushed aside weeks of angry White House rhetoric and veto threats to narrowly approve a $124 billion war spending bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March. "How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?" asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. "How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight f or their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough."

Labels: Dave Loebsack, Iraq

From the Daily Iowan: "... we cannot support the way in which some antiwar protesters continually place unrealistic expectations upon lawmakers or believe immediate removal of troops will solve everything." ... What is a "realistic expectation" to ending an unjust war? How many more soldiers, innocent civilians, and others have to be sacrificed for our moderation? The DI editorial staff has got it wrong. We need to be demanding of our lawmakers because they are the ones we elect to solve problems not exacerbate them. ... With regard to extracting ourselves from Iraq, I do agree with the DI on one issue, there is no good way to do it--by ourselves. And that has been the problem from the start. We failed to use diplomacy in an effective manner then and we have lost the all important political capital to do it now. The way forward in Iraq is to let regional diplomacy work, to offer aid to repair Iraq's infrastructure, and most importantly, to redeploy our troops as quickly as we can to where they best can be effective.

Labels: Iraq

Every Friday in Iowa City, since the war in Iraq began, a small group of people have met at the corner of Washington and Clinton Streets between 5:15 and 5:45 pm to protest it. The number ebbs and flows. On really cold days, there may be one or two people out there. ... I do not know where you live or what you can do, but I know that visible public protest is important. It says that we care what happens, we are participants in moving our government toward peace, and we believe we can affect change--even if it is showing up on a street corner in the heart of the Midwest and saying enough is enough.

Labels: Iraq

Some anti-war protesters do not know trespass is a crime. Unlike the days of Jim Crow, trespass is neither required nor an essential part of speaking out against bad policies. The people who were arrested in Grassley's office and the Cedar Rapids Federal Courthouse got what they deserved. They were not arrested for "speaking truth to power," or any other mythological reason. They were arrested for the incredibly common and mundane crime of trespass. ... Today's criminals were arrested for disobeying sensible laws that were unrelated to the policies they protested. That is why they are common criminals whereas the brave black men and women who were arrested in their protests were heroes.

Labels: Charles Grassley, Iraq

... The success of protest depends on how you define the target. If the goal is publicity and attention to Grassley's pro-war policies, they were a success. Front pages, and here I am writing about it. But if the idea was to actually persuade Grassley, then it was a waste of time. Attempts to persuade seated politicians only work on small to medium size issues. On the hot buttons issues, on questions of basic philosophy, politicians are either firm or, if not, they are hurt more by the obvious pandering (see The Entire Career of Mitt Romney for details). ... The only way to deal with politicians who can't be persuaded is to work around them, persuade the larger public, and defeat them. That's why I've chosen to focus my activism on electoral politics.

Labels: Charles Grassley, Iraq