Senate funds Iraq war

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:35:23 PM MST

Again, no surprises.

Here are thoughts and miscellaneous bits of information:

WaPo's Kane and Weisman had this to say about the votes on the AMT patch with offsets:

Republicans and some Democrats held firm against any tax increase, though, and the proposal, with a vote of 48 to 46 in favor, fell far short of the 60 votes needed to pass. The House now appears ready to pass the AMT measure without any offset.

Oops! Actually a bill needs only 51 votes to pass in the Senate, and 60 votes to end a filibuster. Lazy reporting? You bet!

Of course, because Senate Republicans are filibustering every bill -- at a rate unprecedented in American history - they've in effect changed the requirements for passing a bill in Congress. Dubious constitutionality? You bet!

Russ Feingold introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill that, if passed, would have ordered the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by May. Max Baucus and Jon Tester both voted against Feingold's amendment.

Mitch McConnell introduced a revised appropriations bill that added the missing money for Iraq .  Max Baucus and Jon Tester both voted for McConnell's amendment.

The House is expected to pass the Senate version of the appropriations bill.

More Tragic News

by: Matt Singer

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:50:14 AM MST

Two U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq in February were killed by friendly fire, according to a military investigation that said improper training and mission preparation were to blame.

Matthew Zeimer, 18, of Glendive, Mont., and Spc. Alan E. McPeek, 20, of Tucson, Ariz., were killed at an outpost in Ramadi, in western Iraq, on Feb. 2. The families of the two soldiers were initially told they were killed by enemy fire.

[...]

The report said the two men were killed by tank fire from a second U.S. Army outpost after insurgents engaged both outposts from numerous locations. The tank gunner and commander thought they were engaging the enemy position, the investigation concluded.

Meanwhile, Iraqis continue to agree: our presence is the driving force in furthering division within their country.

I don't even really know what to write.

The fight over funding for Iraq

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 15:58:57 PM MST

Today, the Senate is likely to take up resolutions tying Iraq war funding to the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. If those fall victim to Republican filibusters, as expected, senators are likely to vote to increase the House's war funding to $70 billion and make it available for Iraq fighting as well. Without such war funds, the president will veto the entire spending bill, the White House said yesterday.

Sounds about right.

As for our own delegation, Dennis Rehberg supports everything having to do with the war, and Jon Tester and Max Baucus oppose cutting funding as a means to end the war.

21st Montanan killed in Iraq

by: jhwygirl

Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 17:46:36 PM MST

Smith is the 21st Montanan killed in Iraq, and the 6th Helena native.

Prayers to Pvt. Smith's family and friends.

3893 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq.  154 since September 1st.

Your daily dose of Dennis

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:08:36 AM MST

Whoo boy! Dennis Rehberg has been opening his gob lately, and the results have been...ugly.

Let's see. There was this little gem:

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg finds his fellow Montana Republicans seem to look favorably on the presidential campaign of Rudy Giuliani because of trust - even though the former New York mayor's positions don't match with the gun-toting West.

Wait...did Rehberg just call Giuliani the most trustworthy? Maybe our Rep. should check in with this blog more often, but Giuliani is, if anything, completely untrustworthy. But then, it's true that the bar for trust among die-hard Republicans is pretty d*mn low in these parts.

And while Rehberg denies it's an endorsement, this statement is about as close to an endorsement as you get. Naturally, we'll all be keeping our eyes on the polls to see who's the frontrunner when the Montana caucus swings around. You'd hate to back the wrong horse, eh?

Oh, before I go onto the next Dennism, there's this juicy quote:

Montanans have a tendency to say, 'You are more liberal than me so I don't agree with your politics, but you are true to your philosophy, you articulate your philosophy, you don't back off it,''' and voters in the state are willing to support such candidates, Rehberg said.

Boy, if that were true, we'd have different representation in the House. In any case, this is no doubt code for "Romney's a d*mn Mormon!" and "Huckabee jeopardizes our corporate goodie bags!"

Moving on...in other Dennis news, there's this:

Rehberg thinks that American troops may well be needed in Iraq for fifty years, news to those of us who were told by our government that the war would be won and paying for itself in six weeks...

That's right! A vote for Dennis Rehberg is a vote for fifty more years of war!

I guess he's comfortable with our grandchildren having to clean up his mess. Too bad no one's come out for the Democratic Party to run against this chump.

The occupation of Iraq is permanent

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 20:28:05 PM MST

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home - how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.

The agreement between Mr. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms.

That's right. Permanent occupation.  And why might we be planning on occupying the country permanently?

Withdrawal: the cure for violence in Iraq?

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:28:56 AM MST

In April, 12 British troops were killed in Iraq in contrast to just 1 in October. Furthermore, "British officials expected a spike in such 'intra-militia violence' after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none," Binns said.

To be fair to the hawks, it appears violence is down across the country. But the drop off of violence in Basra suggests that the escalation in troops around Baghdad has little or nothing to do with the reduced attacks. IMHO, what's more likely is that political conditions in Iraq are shifting.

What seems to be apparent from Basra is that our military presence isn't necessary to whatever shifts are occurring. And our presence still doesn't seem to be improving the life of ordinary Iraqis.

Thoughts?

On the dollar, oil, and the Iraq war

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:24:48 AM MST

Which brings me back to George Ochenski's column this week on the cost of the Iraq war:

If you believe anything that comes out of the White House these days, you probably thought the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan totaled $804 billion. Certainly that number is more than enough to raise concerns for a government that is living on borrowed foreign money, but according to the new figures released by Congressional Democrats this week, it is really only about half of what the wars are really costing us. Astoundingly, when you add in the hidden costs such as the interest on the loans, long-term health care for injured vets, and the sky-high costs for fuel thanks to the disruptive effect of the wars on the oil markets, the real number comes up at $1.6 trillion from 2002 to 2008. If you break out the cost between Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iraq War comes out at a whopping $1.3 trillion, or $16,500 per family of four.

Apply these numbers to the current situation now facing America and their real significance becomes readily apparent. Take the value of our dollar, for instance. Remember just a few short years ago when a greenback was good for almost a buck and half in Canada? Now it's worth about 96 cents. Or how about the euro? When the official currency of the European Union was issued it was worth about 80 cents on the dollar. This week on international money markets, the exchange rate is about $1.46 against the buck.

What that means in simplest terms is that the world is judging America's fiscal stability and long-term outlook and not finding the happy face our politicians continue to paint for us. Instead, they are finding a crumbling empire that, like so many empires before us, has overextended itself abroad while failing to shore up the foundations at home, hence the dollar, once the proud standard for international trade and investment, is becoming a losing investment for the rest of the world.

If you listen to Republicans talk, you'd think they - and Ronald Regan as their proxy -- single-handedly won the Cold War and toppled the Soviet Union. Of course, what really broke the Soviet Union's back was an annoying little guerrilla war in Afghanistan.

There's no doubt the United States is a super power, but that doesn't mean we're invulnerable. Thanks to President Bush and his backers (Dennis Rehberg, I mean you), we might just experience that fact first hand.

MSU poll: CHIP, delegates popular; Iraq, Bush unpopular

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:24:04 AM MST

Baucus, a Democrat, received an approval rating of 64 percent, with the rest of those surveyed about equally split between disapproval and undecided. His approval rating in the same poll has swayed from 50 percent in 1994 to 68 percent in 1998.

Schweitzer, also a Democrat, received approval from 63 percent of those surveyed, while 18 percent disapproved and 19 percent were undecided. The governor, elected in 2004, had a 69 percent approval rating in 2005.

Rehberg, a Republican, was supported by 59 percent of respondents, with 17 percent disapproving and 24 percent undecided. His positive job approval rating is up from a low of about 49 percent in 2001 and 2005.

Tester, a Democrat elected last year, received the approval of 57 percent of those surveyed, while 16 percent disapproved. A larger portion, 27 percent, was undecided. It was the first time Montana State University Billings had asked the question about Tester.

There you go. No surprises, really, although I've been curious about Tester's numbers for awhile. This is the first approval poll taken after he's been in office long enough to have an effect on people's views; that 27 percent are undecided indicates there's still room to grow. And Tester's good approval ratings makes him seem a lot less of a vulnerable target, as people have claimed. I suspect his popularity will only increase as people get to know him.

And why not? He's a savvy, competent, genial, and honest representative. The likelihood of Jon getting wrapped up in a scandal - like, say, getting hinky with Abramoff boys - is practically nil.

On the flip side is Rehberg's 59 percent approval. I'm not going to lie: that's a big hurdle for Bill Kennedy to climb. Make no mistake, Bill's a great candidate, and if anyone can oust Dennis, it's Mr. K. But I think Kennedy's going to have to pin down Rehberg on some issues, get him to state where he actually stands. You have to admit, like with CHIP, Rehberg's good at taking multiple and opposing views on a number of issues. But, like Shane, I think Rehberg's record, especially on Iraq, is his weakpoint:

In support of number 3 above, consider the states support for the Iraq war:

The poll found that only 35 percent of Montanans surveyed now support the decision to go to war in Iraq. About 58 percent oppose that decision, up from 48 percent in both 2005 and 2006 in the same poll.

Let us all take this time to remember that Rehberg has voted in lockstep with Bush on this issue since day one. Also, consider that Bush had an 87% approval rating in 2001 but has slipped to 35% now. Can you say 'sinking ship'? Good. I knew you could.

Oh, one quick thought about the Good Guv: this is the first approval numbers I've seen since the much discussed and vitriolic 2007 legislative session, and Schweitzer's approval numbers seem virtually unchanged. Interesting...

The root of terrorism is not poverty

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:58:57 PM MST

...the available evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate educa­tion as important causes of support for terrorism or participation in terrorist activities. Such explana­tions have been embraced almost entirely on faith, not scientific evidence.

Why is that important? Poverty often is the cause of many other crimes. Low employment rates and low wages directly correlate to crime levels. Well-paying jobs, then, are the antidote to crime-ridden neighborhoods. A serious effort made to reduce crime should include as much money towards infrastructure improvements - schools, transportation, parks, etc. - that make communities more attractive to employers as towards law enforcement. In short, if you understand the root of your problem, you can correct it.

If poverty were at the heart of Islamic radicalism, then, the solution would involve helping alleviate poverty in the area producing terrorists. Raise the economic level of those areas and -- *poof* -- no more terrorism. Only Kruger persuasively demonstrates that terrorism (and hate crimes, interestingly enough) are not affected by jobs and wages and education or other similar economic conditions. That contradicts a lot of amateurish observations (including mine) that crushing poverty among the Palestinian refugee camps contributes to Arab-Israeli conflicts.

New York Times Notices Montana Referenda

by: Matt Singer

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 15:54:35 PM MST

We've been asked repeatedly if these things would have any impact beyond symbolic -- as though in politics symbols don't matter.

Municipal election results

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:04:16 AM MST

Both of the Iraqi war referendums passed. In Missoula, 64 percent of voters asked their delegates to bring home the troops, and in Helena 61 percent of voters did the same. That's about as lopsided as it gets. Let's hope this adds a little more action and urgency to our Senators who've already spoken out against the war, and causes our sole Representative to reconsider his as yet unflagging support of President Bush.

In the Missoula city council elections the news was good, too. First, Jason Wiener won his ward 1 race in a rout. Jason's a good friend; we shared an office together at the University for a short while. I can say this with confidence: Missoula has just elected one of the smartest people you'll ever meet, and I'm confident the council, city, and citizens will benefit by his presence in our city government. Congratulations to Jason.

State Department staff not keen on Iraq

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:41:35 PM MST

The action took place in a "town hall" style meeting of hundreds of Foreign Services, who might soon be pressed into duty in Iraq. The civilians in the department have legitimate concerns with service in Iraq. Foremost among them is that service in Iraq is dangerous:

Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now," he said to sustained applause.

Harry K. Thomas Jr., the director general of the Foreign Service, who called the meeting, responded curtly. "Okay, thanks for your comment," he said, declaring the town hall meeting over.

Benen highlights the rifts within government service between the administration and its staffers over Iraq. In effect, the war is tearing apart the State Department.

But there's another interesting observation to make: the rift between State Foreign Service officers and the administration reflects that the illusion of an increasingly stable Iraq is starting to take its toll. Because, after all, it's generally the State Department's policy not to staff embassies in war zones. But U.S. embassy in Iraq is staffed, and largely to promote the idea among Americans that Iraq isn't in chaos. In other words, the idea is if you pretend everything's normal, people will perceive it as normal.

Only it's not normal in Iraq. The situation is apparently pretty bad, even in the Green Zone, as Rice herself admitted in recent testimony on the Blackwater shootings. And reality is beginning to take its toll on the government.

Independent-Record Nails It

by: Matt Singer

Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:49:54 AM MST

t sometimes is said that these issues really have no place in a municipal election, and moreover that such referendums are meaningless because, after all, Helenans have no power to affect the nation's foreign relations.

Well, yes and no. To be sure, the resolutions are binding on no one, least of all a president unlikely to ever face voters again. But there certainly is value in bringing a kind of formality to the discussions we've all been having with our families and friends. These ballot issues give people a chance to put their beliefs about the wisdom of this county's actions on record, elevating them above mere bar talk or sputtering at the TV set.

And ultimately, our views do matter in a democracy. Like all the similar resolutions voted on in hundreds of other cities across the country, our voices, added together, cannot be ignored by our representatives in Washington. Indeed, our voices could turn out to be more powerful than we know.

Here's the reality: local citizens coming together and voicing their opinions officially on national matters predates the American republic. It's a cherished tradition that has been unfortunately forgotten to the point that people (mostly elites) raise arguments about whether it is "our place" to speak out on big scary issues like the war going on overseas.

The response is easy, of course. It's America. Our rights to speech, to petition, to speak out, and to vote are all enshrined in our Constitutions. And as to the question of whether we should -- well, I am a spring chicken. But it doesn't take a senior citizen to know that Washington, D.C., occasionally needs a little bit of a slap in the face from the people back home.

HILLARY'S WARS: Plan B for Iraq and Iran

by: Steve W.

Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:13:38 AM MST

http://www.democrati...

Highly recommended reading for enquiring minds.

On "Islamo-fascism" and dissent

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:57:32 AM MST

Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco's sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression-especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance"-and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately the way in which al-Qaida has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and green movements.

Hitchens does admit that "Islamo-facism" is missing its nation-state, corporatism, and racial politics, but, hey! The analogy isn't perfect.

Bill Richardson: "It's Time to Make a Choice in Iraq"

by: Bill Richardson for President

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 18:31:46 PM MST

It's Time to Make a Choice in Iraq

By Governor Bill Richardson

Yesterday,twelve former Army captains wrote that short of reinstating the draft, "our best option is to leave Iraq immediately." In an extraordinary editorial in the Washington Post, these captains--all of whom served in Iraq--made it clear that we need to end this war and we need to end it now. They wrote that a " scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition."

I strongly urge every American to read this important report from those who served in the failed conflict in Iraq. Army captains are the staff officers who plan operations against insurgent strongholds. They are the company commanders who lead our soldiers through the streets of Baghdad. And they are the soldiers who will direct our withdrawal from Iraq.

These men and women know the score. They know that we must leave Iraq. As they put it, "It's time to make a choice." Americans are fed up with the President's stalling and Congressional failure to act. Frankly, it is well past time we make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind--no combat forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of our troops out within a year after I take office - sooner if we can get it done safely.

The other major candidates in this race have said--again and again--that they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of them are willing to be clear about removing all troops - combat and non-combat. It's unbelievable. Are they looking at the same war the rest of us are? Furthermore, they are all advocating precisely the sort of scaled withdrawal that these  twelve captains are warning against. It doesn't make any sense. Real leadership  is about making the tough choices, and knowing when it is time to make bold  moves. Now is the time for action, not hesitation. Ending this war requires  real change, not more incrementalism.

Ending this war is the most important issue of our time. And it is the fundamental  difference between me and Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. I will end  the war; they will not. I will get all of our troops out; they will leave  troops behind indefinitely. I will order a safe and rapid withdrawal and have  our troops out within a year. They have proposed a long, protracted withdrawal  that will only increase the danger to our fighting men and women and drag  out the war.

2013 is six years from now - six years. In six years, will  we have lost 6,000 men and women in Iraq? 10,000? More? In six years will  this be a $2 trillion mistake? Or $3 trillion? The war has been going on for  four and half years already. Six years from now, we will have been there for  more than a decade. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

The choice in Iraq is clear. We need to get all our troops out quickly. We  need to end this war for real. Go to getourtroopsout.com  to join Americans across the country in calling for a quick, clear, responsible  end to the war in Iraq.

12 Retired Army Captains Say We Have a Choice: Draft or Go

by: Matt Singer

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:11:53 AM MST

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

This is well worth keeping in mind -- ballots are being mailed out today in Missoula giving locals a chance to vote on this very question. I think ballots with a similar question are going out in Helena.

Draft or go? Which will it be?

OpenColumnist - Asking for Input From LITW Readers

by: davidsirota

Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:37:25 AM MST

To kick this off, I want to ask readers for some input on my first few columns. As I said, this is just the initial step - I have some more ideas on how to really try to pursue the spirit of transparency inherent in Open Source culture. I want to try to be the first OpenColumnist, if you will - and this is just the beginning.

The case for withdrawal from Iraq

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:31:57 PM MST

It's this lack of an cohesive argument for withdrawal that Kevin Drum addresses in a recent post. In it, he lists the reasons why we should leave. I've presented them below and added links and commentary, underscoring the validity of his claims.