Where Do YOUR Congress Critters Stand on Escalation?

Do you know who is in the BIPARTISAN CAMP and who stands out like a sore thumb?

Rep. John Larson (D, CT-1)

“The rally, organized by Connecticut Opposes the War, a single-issue coalition of political, religious, community and labor organizations, focused on two themes: the Iraq war’s continuing cost in lives, money and American ideals and the need for the new Congress to say no more, particularly to Bush’s recently announced plan to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq. … ‘What we need to do is escalate diplomacy in the [Mideast] region,’ Larson told the crowd.” [Link]

Rep. Joe Courtney (D, CT-2)

“U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who won his first term by defeating Republican Rob Simmons in November, criticized the president’s plan and said adding more troops is not the answer to stopping the sectarian violence.” [Link]

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D, CT-3)

“I have opposed this war from the outset, and I have cosponsored legislation opposing an escalation of the Iraq war.” [Link]

Rep. Christopher Shays (R, CT-4)

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays said yesterday it would be a ‘huge mistake’ to send more American troops to Iraq if that country’s government ‘doesn’t do the heavy lifting it has to do.’ [Link]

Rep. Christopher Murphy (D, CT-5)

No opinion given YET!

Sen. Chris Dodd (D, CT)

“I believe it will be a mistake for us at this juncture to be adding more troops. … I don’t see any mission associated with this. It sounds to me like a tactic in search of a strategy.” [Link]

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I, CT)

“I applaud the President for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq.”...“Tonight, the President did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course.” [Link]

Interesting that the primary sore loser stands out like sore thumb...

We need to get an official response from Chris Murphy on this!

Blog for Choice

Blog for Choice:
Last year during the Alito confirmations we started a campaign over a BooTrib, leading up to Christmas time, called the "12 Days of Justice". I am going to share with you the flyer that I made up for that campaign because it goes to the heart of arguments and views that many ANTI-WOMEN right-wingnut groups have chosen to support:
--------------------------
--------------------------

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.

Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.

T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:

If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.

This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.

What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?

In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)

Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:

"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."


(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)

Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.

In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."

Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.

Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.

Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.

I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.

--------------------------
--------------------------


The simple fact that Alito was confirmed in the end demonstrates how much more vigilant we need to be in protecting basic rights for women, and personal choices over what happens to their personal bodies is about as basic a right as you can get.

To demonstrate just how sexist this view of legislating personal choice is, has anyone EVER heard of any serious legislation proposed to stop men from getting vasectomies?

A side note: I am sick as a dog and tired as hell because I didn't sleep at all last night... But I had to make this post because it is an important issue. If I am lucky I will be back to regular posting in a day or two, but for now I am taking it easy.

Soldiers Stories From NOW

Some soldierss stories from the PBS show NOW:

Crooks and Liars:
"To complement their program yesterday, NOW is offering on their website some interviews with deploying soldiers and their families from Ft. Stewart.

Joel: I'm proud to draw your attention to a moving and insightful web-exclusive piece on NOW Online and YouTube. In a complement to our report about soldiers returning to the front in Iraq, we interview three married couples at Georgia's Fort Stewart who share their unique fears and anxieties about not just going to Iraq, but returning for a second or third tour of duty. Some concerns are new, others stay the same. The stories are grippingly real.

Please pass along this email to friends and colleagues for a look past the rhetoric and political posturing, into the hearts of those sacrificing everything for country."

VOICES FROM FORT STEWART:



Pass it on...

Travel Grants for Students!

Yes... There are a a few minor details. For one: I am pretty sure you have to be a member of Campus Progress...

On Saturday, January 27 there will be a major mobilization in Washington, D.C. against the new policy of escalation in Iraq.

Campus Progress wants to make sure that students are able to make their voices heard in Washington. That's why we are offering travel grants of up to $300 for students organizing carpools or vans from their campus to the capital.

To learn more about the March, or to apply for a travel scholarship Click here!

Grants will be awarded on the basis of:

1. Financial Need
2. Number of Students the Grant Will Assist
3. Planned Involvement (For example - Are you going to write a blog post about the rally? Will you be attending the lobby day as well?)

Funds are limited, so we will not be able to help everyone.

If you are a student and you are interested in this Campus Progress travel adventure there are more details and other resources at the link.

Oh yeah! Right! Like you really thought you were going to get a "spring break" vacation in the sun? Jojn Campus Progress and maybe you can learn to organize that one yourself.
:)

The death of the GOP

If it is really as bad as Mehlman says it is (AND IT IT IS!) then why bother?

In his farewell speech after two years as chairman, Mr. Mehlman said that the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, was not a fluke that could be attributed to the calendar, a few scandal-tainted candidates and the tough going in Iraq.

“Each of these factors combined to create an environment that was unfavorable for Republicans,” said Mr. Mehlman, one of the chief architects of President Bush’s two national election victories. “But, folks, these factors cannot be an excuse.”

He said that if Republican officials shrugged off the repudiation of the party in the 2006 elections they would lose the White House in 2008 and remain in the minority in Congress indefinitely. He said the party had to recommit itself to political reform, fiscal restraint and personal ethics.

Mr. Mehlman addressed the roughly 170 members of the Republican National Committee at their annual winter meeting, a rather glum affair at a downtown hotel here. Party members are still nursing the wounds of the mid-term elections and are riven by divisions over Iraq, immigration and other issues. Members are also beginning to take sides in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

These Republicans could save themselves a lot of time, trouble and money and just worry about which Democratic party candidate they will vote for. At this rate they will have some of the freeper and Redstate supporters that might vote for the GOP, the faaarthest of the faaaar right, perhaps a some support from "lifers", then there will be those that just stay home disillusioned... and then there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, from any independents/unaffiliateds.

Republicans may as well try and buy themselves another Lieberclone out of the DLC side of the Democratic party and hope they can fool the progressives. It would be the closest thing they could ever get to a win, at this rate, if they succeeded. heh

Bush and the Neoconservatives will kill the GOP off completely. They are the epitome of ideology over party. The ONLY CHANCE the GOP has is if they force Bush to stop... And it is apparent that if the GOP wants to survive it will depend on them removing Bush and Cheney from office. Because that is the only way they will stop Bush. And they know it.

I am sure the Democratic party will help you on this one... But it will be up to the Republicans to make the first moves. It remains to be seen whether or not the Republicans have the balls they will need to save their own party.

The GOP will still lose in '08. But it won't be the complete and total death of the GOP if they stop Bush.

Lieberman = Bush = More Failure

A few notes on the NewsTimes op-ed yesterday.

"Resolution against Bush policy gains momentum
As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq, the White House is once again trying to define support of the president as support of the troops.

"The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. "And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?"

Shame on Snow.

American military personnel have performed heroically in Iraq, despite the many failures that have made their mission more difficult and more dangerous."

Yes, American soldiers have done the best they can given the dysfunctional leadership that had no real plans AND have refused to give the American soldiers the proper equipment to do the job safely. But this situation is only multiplied exponentially by the fact that the Iraqis have never been given the tools they need to take over the job there:

“In the interview yesterday, Maliki said many American and Iraqi lives would have been spared if the Iraqi forces were better equipped.”

Quotes like that show that the president is either: A) delusional; or B) is purposely trying to keep us there by refusing to get Iraqi soldiers going in the right direction; C) a bit of both. How are the Iraqis ever supposed to take over a job - you know, stand up so we can stand down - that the American soldiers have been unable to handle if the Iraqis are even more ill-equiped than the American soldiers?

Frankly, we don't care anymore about whether or not bush is failing because he is delusional or if he is failing to continue war-profiteering, or any other number of reasons that could explain his failed policies. We have had enough of his failure for whatever reasons.

The president had the opportunity to forge a new Iraq strategy and win congressional and public support. Instead, he has offered a dressed-up version of his failed stay-the-course strategy.

Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):

Note: Proposed Surge Assumes 20,000 Troops (Graph H/T Tparty)

WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:

During his campaign last fall, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman claimed he was ready to carefully scrutinize the president's policies on Iraq. Safely re-elected, Lieberman is as enthusiastic as ever about Bush's policies and plans for escalation.

Umm? That isn't quite what Joe said before the elections... Here is the money quote provided in an excerpt from Matt Browner Hamlin at MLN:

"David Sirota has a can't-miss op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on what politicians and pundits said about Iraq before the war and if any of them have taken responsibility for their words since the war has become a disaster. John Edwards famously owned up to his mistake of voting for the war, but we know that he's an exception not the rule. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, is more of the rule than the exception.

Similarly, consider U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Independent-Conn.). Facing a difficult Democratic primary challenge, Lieberman said of Iraq in July that "the sooner we are out the better," and that, by the end of 2006, he would support efforts to "begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops." He later said that "no one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do and bring our troops home." But weeks after being re-elected, Lieberman is now leading the charge for military escalation, sending a letter to President Bush last week saying, "[I] strongly encourage you to send additional American troops to Iraq."

Pundits and news analysts are employed to expose this sort of nonsense so that our democratic discourse -- and the policy choices that come out of it -- are grounded in fact. But that has not happened. Instead, we have seen a furious stampede by the most prominent media figures to cover their own hides with either more lies, or more out-of-the mainstream bluster.

Lieberman's hypocrisy and intellectual shallowness is the model for "liberal" hawks like Joe Klein and Tom Friedman. The lack of incrimination of people like Lieberman for their damaging public positions and subsequent shunning of guilt for their words and actions imperils the future of our nation to handle crises of national security and national conscience. Sirota nails this home with his concluding paragraphs.

How can we expect to change course in Iraq, if a president is given a pass to claim he has never stayed the course in the first place? How can we expect to hold lawmakers accountable if they are never questioned about their efforts to deliberately mislead us? How can we expect the media to be a watchdog if its leading analysts and news framers face no public sanctions when they disrespect the truth or give credence to fringe ideologies?

A country whose national political conversation is dominated by voices that deny their own complicity in national security tragedies; downplay human casualties, and generally make dishonesty mundane, is a nation prevented from reflecting on its bad decisions -- and thus is doomed to repeat such bad decisions in the future.

Demanding that the proponents of war accept their failures of vision and the consequences of these failures is crucial to avoiding a repetition of the calamity in Iraq."

Yep! What they said... It is the responsibility of these newspapers to dig a little deeper and point out the lunacy of positions taken by liars like Joe Lieberman.

Fox Poll: OUCH!

Results of a Fox poll posted by Eric Kleefeld at TPM Cafe's Election Central:

"This has to be a milestone: A new poll has found that the American people dislike President Bush more than they dislike ... Dick Cheney. The poll — by Fox News, of all people — finds that President Bush's unfavorable rating is 58%, while Cheney's unpopularity rating is five points lower at 53%. Bush can, however, still take some small solace from the fact that his approval rating is one point higher than Cheney's; the President's is 38%, while the VP's is 37%.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of other numbers that are striking for a Fox poll: Only 39% of Americans view the GOP favorably, and 49% view them unfavorably. Meanwhile, a majority of respondents — 51% — have a favorable view of Dems, compared to only 35% who have an unfavorable view of what Fox likes to call the "Democrat Party.""

Holy wingnut crap! They hate Bush more than Cheney? With all of the bush failures there is no doubt why Fox propaganda can no longer even prop up any support for their beloved GOP wingnuts.

Murdoch and O'liely must be crying into thir GOP talking points right about now...

Genrals March on Bush

And slap the incomopetent Bush silly:

House Dems to support Iraq resolution - Yahoo! News: "Four retired senior U.S. military officers criticized the administration's strategy at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

'It's a fool's errand,' said Gen. Barry McCaffrey. 'Our allies are leaving us,' he said. 'Make no mistake about that. Most will be gone by this summer.'

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, said, 'The new strategy reflects the inability of the administration to get it right.' He said, 'The proposed solution to send in more troops won't work. It is far too little and too late.'"

Not to mention that Republican Olympia Snowe has joined Hagel in crossing the aisle to support slapping the idiot-bush-boy's policy down.

So far, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine are the only Republicans to announce their backing for the Senate measure. A third lawmaker, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., signaled during the day he is giving serious consideration to joining them.

I would be willing to bet (IF I were a gambling man, I am not!) that as long as the failing bush continues killing his own GOP's integrity, and any chances of other GOP candidates getting re-elected in the future, by continuing his ESCALATION policiy you will start seeing some of the more moderate GOP members asking if they can pemanently cross the aisle...

Ya think?

Blog for Choice Day

Via CGG's ever caffeinated Blog:

On January 22nd - the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade - we are asking pro-choice bloggers to join us in a day of activism for choice. Blog for Choice Day is a chance to raise the profile of reproductive rights issues in the blogosphere and the media, and to let everyone know that a woman's right to choose is nonnegotiable.

This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

Sign up for Blog for Choice Day below to let us know that you're planning on devoting at least one post on January 22nd to sharing the story behind your pro-choice beliefs. You can download a Blog for Choice Day sidebar graphic to let your readers know that you're participating. We'll send you a reminder, and link to your post here. You can also tag your posts with "Blog for Choice" to show you're joining in.

If you're not a blog or a website, please encourage your favorite sites to take part in Blog for Choice Day!

Together we can ensure that the blogosphere is flooded on January 22nd with pro-choice voices.

This is one of the reasons I became involved in the multi-blogger "Anti-Alito-Brigade" effort...

Global Warming

OK... So everyone is losing out with Climate Change:

The cost of climate change:
A state of Washington report on the effects of climate change said “It’s safe to say that virtually every aspect of the state’s economy will be affected by climate change.” This includes higher prices for lumber, water, and crops and additional expenses to protect shorelines from flooding.But of course it’s not just Washington, it’s happening in all the states. Plant zones shifted one zone north from 1990-2006, Sue says, what happens when Connecticut (where we’re moving to) becomes California? And what will the climate in southern California be like in 10 years?

But California will also lose with a Blogger that gives a damn about these things moving to Connecticut. If the Blogger sticks around long enough we may even be able to give him a warm California welcome here in CT... I guess it is a good-news-bad-news kindof thing, eh?

No offense, but I really like my winters with snow!

Tweety said what?

On stopping the failed Bush administration and their Middle East failures Tweety said "It's not a left-wing position... It's an Amaerican position."

“If you want America to be a hegemonic power in the Middle East, you’re out of step with the American people. We’re not going to fight it out with Iran for the next 30 years to see who the big shit — I’m sorry — the big name is on the block.”

He also said a naughty word... But who really gives a shit about that?

Dodd introduces bill to cap U.S. troop levels in Iraq

There are not many details in the report but Sen. Dodd has made the obvious first move in stopping the reckless Bush administration from ESCALATING the failed Bush war.

Dodd introduces bill to cap U.S. troop levels in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, is hoping to become a strong voice against President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The presidential candidate introduced legislation Tuesday that put a limit on the number of troops in Iraq at about 132,000.

Dodd's bill also would require congressional approval in order for any additional troops to be sent to Iraq. This is the kind of thing that needs a push and a shove from every Senators' constituants. Start dialing and Emailing! and ask them to support this.

[update]A PDF of the beginings of the bill Via Gabe at CLP:

My initial reaction is that this legislation has a better chance of passing than does Senator Kennedy’s legislation denying funding for a troop escalation (which Senator Dodd also supports) and also has a much better chance of surviving the sure veto. This legislation has the potential to attract more Republicans who have become disillusioned about Iraq.

I like that Dodd is doing this but there is always Kenedy’s bill to consider as well. In the case of the reckless bush administration it would be safer and wiser to back whichever bill has more controls. Also, Hillary Clinton is on record as supporting the same sort of idea as Dodd's bill. Though, Clinton makes no mention of any bill.

Obama Files Papers: He's all in.

Was there ever any doubts about this?

Obama takes 1st step in presidential bid
Obama announced his intentions to file a presidential exploratory committee on his Web site. He said he would announce more about his plans in his hometown of Chicago on Feb. 10.

"I didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," Obama said in a video posting. "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress we so desperately need.

"The decisions that have been made in the past six years have put our country in a precarious place," he said.

[update]There was speculation on MSNBC that Hillary Clinton may have cancelled her plans to announce her running today because shortly after Obama's announcement she postponed/cancelled a news gaggle she had planned.

Troops Fight Bush, Lieberman, McCain

I saw this sory at the HuffPo, But Crooks & Liars asks the obvious question:

WSJ via HuffPo:

A group of more than 50 active-duty military officers will deliver a petition to Congress on Tuesday signed by about 1,000 troops calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. "Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets," said Sergeant Ronn Cantu, who is serving in Iraq.

Under the 1988 Military Whistleblower Protection Act, active duty military, National Guard, and Reservists may communicate with any member of Congress without fear of reprisal, even if copies of the communication are sent to others.

Will Cheney accuse them of undermining the troops as well?