I love Countdown. I enjoy Keith Olbermann’s Special Commentary’s. This book is simply his Worst Person in the World segments. It makes for good TV and just an okay book. This book is a good book for bathroom reading.
The return of Watergate.
The Middle East experts from the Center for American Progress wrote the following:
Executive Summary
As 2006 draws to a close, the United States faces a critical choice: a new strategy for regaining stability and making progress in the Middle East, or a military escalation in Iraq. President Bush sets the national security agenda, but the incoming 110th Congress will play a key role in helping shape the country’s deliberations over this critical choice. To us, the choices are clear:
Promote a Diplomatic Surge and Oppose Military Escalation. For the past month, the Iraq debate has been dominated by discussion of a possible military escalation, or the so-called “surge” option. Choosing this path would be simply doubling down on a failed strategy. Since last June, the United States tried a similar military escalation twice in Baghdad, and there is no compelling evidence indicating that a third time would be a charm. Rather that sinking deeper into Iraq’s civil war, the United States should undertake a fundamental strategic shift centered on a political and diplomatic surge aimed at resolving Iraq’s civil war and stabilizing other parts of the Middle East.
Ignore the Advice from Those Responsible for the Iraq Quagmire. Supporters of U.S. military escalation in Iraq in 2007 are among the same pundits and so called experts who assured the president that the U.S. invasion was necessary; that the war would be a cakewalk; that we would be greeted as liberators; that we could rebuild Iraq at a cost of $1.5 billion a year; and that we could reduce our troop strength to 30,000 by the end of 2003. These pundits fail to recognize some key realities: that the fundamental security challenge in Iraq is a violent struggle for power; that the United States cannot solve Iraq’s problems militarily; and that the U.S. presence is fostering a culture of dependency and increasing the violence.
Exercise the Proper Constitutional Role of Congress in Guiding Iraq Policy. When Congress reconvenes, the Bush administration will submit a supplemental funding request to the defense budget of at least $100 billion to fund the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of FY 2007. Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number. In addition, it can place limits on the mobilization of Guard and Reserve forces, and vote on key aspects of U.S. funding, including U.S. taxpayer money that is going to provide weapons and training to Iraqi security forces. At minimum, Congress should increase its oversight and demand a full-blown, detailed plan from the Bush administration on how it is preparing to stabilize Iraq and address the growing problems in the Middle East.
Although stem cell research passed, it is not enough to overturn a veto.
I have mentioned this before on this blog and on Daily Kos. Stem Cell may or may not provide the promises that we have all heard of. I don’t understand the objection that some people have to stem cell research. A cluster of cells is not a human life. A blastocyst is about 100 cells. If you say that 100 cells is a human life then 2 cells would be a human life also. What about 1 cell? Then an egg and a sperm must be a human life also. If you remove an ovary are you killing a human life? Finally, if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway wouldn’t it be better to use the embryo for research?
From NYT:
The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.
But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush’s promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.
The White House said the bill — the third bill of the Democrats’ first 100 hours agenda to pass the House — ”would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research.” (more…)
Brian Katulis mentioned this on my radio show this morning. I had missed it. Who is this guy? Why are the Kurds nervous? I’m now wondering about Maliki. What is he about? Is he really interested in a stable democratic government?
———
From LAT:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has filled the top military job in Baghdad with a virtually unknown officer chosen over the objections of U.S. and Iraqi military commanders, officials from both governments said.
Iraqi political figures said Friday that Maliki also had failed to consult the leaders of other political factions before announcing the appointment of Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar.
The appointment is highly significant because it is Maliki’s first public move after President Bush’s announcement that he was sending more troops to Iraq. The prime mission of those troops is to reduce violence in Baghdad, much of which is blamed on sectarian fighters.
As the Iraqi commander for the capital, Qanbar would play a central role in that campaign, and any ties he might have to sectarian groups could undermine the new U.S. effort.
In his speech Wednesday, in which he announced the troop increase, Bush said political and sectarian interference in security matters would no longer be tolerated. [Read more →]
Please read the whole article before thinking that President Ford was just another right wing wack job. He wasn’t.
From CNN.com:
In 25 years of interviews with his hometown paper that could only be released upon his death, former President Ford once called Jimmy Carter a “disaster” who ranked alongside Warren Harding, and said Ronald Reagan received far too much credit for ending the Cold War.
“It makes me very irritated when Reagan’s people pound their chests and say that because we had this big military buildup, the Kremlin collapsed,” Ford told The Grand Rapids Press.
Ford contended his own negotiation of the Helsinki accords on human rights did more to win the Cold War than Reagan’s military buildup. [Read more →]
Errington C. Thompson, MD, is a surgeon, scholar, fulltime sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats...
