Archive for the 'Iraq' Category

“No more fallen angels”

Published by
Chris Woods
September 18, 2007 in 2007 Harkin Steak Fry, 2008 Elections, Biden, Caucuses, Democrats, Iowa politics and Iraq. 1 Comment

I’ll try and post more thoughts on the Harkin Steak Fry as we go through the day. But first let me start off with a candidate who I’ve criticized before quite often: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

Biden gave the last speech of the day at the Steak Fry, a somber one about the realities of the war in Iraq and the way the issue dominates our policy in America and limits our ability to make progress in other areas. Just as Biden began to speak, clouds came in and covered the sun seemingly as if called on by Biden to show the seriousness with which he spoke.

You can click here to go to JoeBiden.com and read the full text of his remarks as prepared. However, there is one section I want to highlight to you:
“You know – in Iraq – the military refers to those who’ve been killed in action – as fallen angels.

How many more angels must fall – before this war ends?”
When my brother gets to Iraq, I will pray that he will not become a fallen angel every day until he returns home safely.

And you can watch the video of Biden’s speech below. The bit about “fallen angels” comes in at about 4:40.

Support the Troops, End the War

Published by
Chris Woods
September 17, 2007 in Iraq and Site stuff. 0 Comments

This will likely be my only post today as I’m taking some personal time to reflect today. I’ll add some of my thoughts and wrap-up reporting about the Harkin Steak Fry tomorrow.

Why am I reflecting today?

Because my brother, a reservist in the United States Marine Corps, left for active duty today. He and about 150 other Marines of the Echo Company left Camp Dodge around 9 AM this morning. They’re headed for three months of intensive desert training in California before heading to Iraq for a seven to eight month tour of duty.

But my brother wasn’t going alone. He will be heading to California and Iraq with four high school buddies while another friend is already an active duty Marine in California. They were profiled today on the front page of the Des Moines Register.

May God be with them.

I support the troops and that’s why I want to end this war; we must bring them home safely and as soon as possible. We must start today.

Clark endorses Clinton

Published by
Chris Woods
September 15, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Caucuses, Clinton, Democrats and Iraq. 0 Comments

Lately, I haven’t been hearing as many folks on the netroots or out here in the real world calling for Retired General Wes Clark to get into the 2008 race. There were a lot of calls back in mid-to-late 2006 but Clark’s campaign apparatus and PAC never really took the steps and many folks had been wondering what the wait was.

Evidently, the wait was because he was looking to pick his own candidate to support. And in another blatant attempt to garner favor among the netroots (who love General Clark), the Clinton Campaign held a conference call this morning announcing with Clark where he announced his endorsement of Clinton’s campaign. Matt Yglesias has more here.

“No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”

Published by
Chris Woods
September 14, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Bush Administration, Democrats, Edwards, Iraq and Media. 0 Comments

Tracy Russo posted over at Bleeding Heartland last night with the video of Sen. John Edwards two-minute response to President Bush’s address to the nation last night. Go watch the video — it is the kind of thing all of the candidates should be doing, if they can afford it. Buying two minutes of straight advertising time during The Countdown with Keith Olbermann can’t be cheap (especially as Olbermann’s ratings keep going up and up).

As for Bush’s speech itself, I couldn’t stand to watch it and didn’t want to watch it. I had a member of the traditional media call me last night to ask if I knew of any groups that would be watching the speech and if they would be worthwhile to talk to afterward for reaction. I told them “hell no” and evidently that was the reaction they’d been getting most of the night.

Maybe the better story for them would’ve been the fact that no one gave a shit about last night’s rehash of the same failed policy over and over again, oh, and with plenty of lies.

How did this happen?

Published by
Chris Woods
September 13, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Biden, Caucuses, Democrats, Iowa politics and Iraq. 1 Comment

I’m sure I’ll have my own thoughts on this later but I’m curious for your thoughts on this question:

How did Sen. Joe Biden manage to lock up the support of the entire Iowa House Democratic leadership?

I’m serious. Of all the candidates with momentum and support in Iowa, particularly among ordinary Iowans, how did this happen? And don’t just say it is the Iraq plan. I’m thinking Biden’s got to be making big promises or saying something awfully interesting things behind the scenes.

Stop by the Iowa State Fair and Ask Grassley and Latham to Support the Troop, End the War

Published by
Chris Woods
August 13, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Democrats, Des Moines, Grassley, Chuck, IA-04, Iowa politics, Iraq and Republicans. 0 Comments

The Iraq Summer Campaign, led by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) and other organizations, is upping the ante in Iowa some more this summer by launching a two-hour phone bank operation across from the Iowa State Fair tomorrow. From the Iraq Summer group:

“On August 14th from 2-4 PM, Senator Chuck Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham are in for a surge of phone calls from Iowa constituents urging them to vote for a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq as the ‘Iraq Summer Campaign’ launches its ‘Candy for Calling’ phone call drive. With a 12-foot long ‘Support the Troops, End the War’ blimp hovering overhead, the Iraq Summer Campaign will set up a phone banking hub across the street from the state fair grand stands and offer sweets to passing Iowans in exchange for a call on a prepaid phone into either Senator Grassley or Rep. Latham’s constituent offices – all part of an ongoing effort to convince them to start representing the clear majority of Iowans by voting to begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. troops out of harm’s way in Iraq.”

This is a pretty creative idea and one that will keep the pressure on Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham who AAEI and Iraq Summer have been targeting all summer in Iowa.

Here are the details:

WHO: Iowa ‘Iraq Summer’ Campaign
WHAT: “Calling for Candy” Phone Bank Offering Iowa State Fair Goers Candy in Exchange for Calling Sen. Grassley, Rep. Latham and Urging Them to Vote for Safe and Responsible End to the War in Iraq
WHERE: 3214 University Ave (Across the street from the Iowa State Fair grand stands), Des Moines, IA
WHEN: Tuesday, August 14th from 2-4 PM

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like they’ll be inside the fairgrounds on the grand concourse, but at least they’ll be able to put some pressure on Iowa’s Republican representatives who help keep Bush’s failed Iraq policies going.

Oh, and at the same time, you might be interested in heading over to the Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox tomorrow to see John McCain speak at 2 PM. You can head there first, give him some hell about the surge and ask him if all of these American soldiers’ lives are worth it, and then head on out to University Ave. to give Grassley and Latham some hell.

Sounds like a good day to me.

Helping Romney Become President Is Close Enough to Serving in the Armed Forces

Published by
Chris Woods
August 8, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Caucuses, Iowa politics, Iraq, Radical Right and Republicans. 5 Comments

Mitt Romney’s five sons are patriotic Americans who support our nation by working to get him elected, instead of serving in the armed forces. From the AP (and confirmed by folks on the ground):

“Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.”

Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was asked the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for “a surge of support” for U.S. forces in Iraq.

[…]”The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that’s the way we’re going to keep it,” Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. “My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”

He added: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”"

My brother is Marine Corps reservist who recently received his orders to report for active duty in September (to a base in California) with a likely date of December for deployment to Iraq. He helped his nation by joining the Marines and offering his life for his country. While I have yet to figure out the “noble cause” he is likely to be fighting for in Iraq, I know he loves this country and when asked to serve he will without hesitation.

But he shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq just to save a president’s failed war and failed policy. I’m sure he’d agree that helping a man run for president, while a noble endeavor, doesn’t take the same kind of courage and risks as being a member of the armed forces of this country.

Or, maybe in the case of Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney, it does take courage to say one thing the next day and say the opposite the next.

Senate GOP Blocks Levin-Reed Again

Published by
Chris Woods
July 18, 2007 in Congress, Democrats and Iraq. 1 Comment

Greg Sargent’s got the best write-up of the GOP blockage here.

And in response, Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid has pulled the Defense Authorization bill and it appears that he won’t bring it back to the floor until he can be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment and three others that will be offered (Warner-Lugar, Salazar ISG, and Landrieu). Talk about playing hardball.

Ouch-26%

Published by
Chris Woods
June 21, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Bush Administration, Caucuses, Iraq, Polls and Republicans. 4 Comments

President Bush hit a new low in his approval rating in the latest Newsweek poll — 26%!

Somebody get that guy a pony.

Oh, and the Iraq war situation and its handling only gets a 23% approval, with a 73% disapproval rating. I wonder just how much it is going to hurt to be a Republican candidate for the presidency over the next several months.

Dodd speaks out on report of potential Iraqi benchmark failures

Published by
Chris Woods
May 29, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Dodd, Iowa politics and Iraq. 0 Comments

Presidential candidate and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is the first presidential candidate to speak out today on the news today that the goals set up by President Bush for the Iraqi government as part of his surge plan are likely to be missed by the end of this summer. Instead, the Bush Administration and military leaders are seeking new ways to define progress since the increase in some 20,000 troops to Iraq earlier this year.

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning:

“In September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, is scheduled to present Congress with an assessment of progress in Iraq. Military officers in Baghdad and outside advisors working with Petraeus doubt that the three major goals set by U.S. officials for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki will be achieved by then.

Enactment of a new law to share Iraq’s oil revenue among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions is the only goal they think might be achieved in time, and even that is considered a long shot. The two other key benchmarks are provincial elections and a deal to allow more Sunni Arabs into government jobs.

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus’ advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including local deals among Iraq’s rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.”

The surge strategy was criticized heavily by Congressional Democrats and has seen low approval ratings in public opinion surveys on the strategy.

Senator Dodd released this statement today:

“Today’s report that top advisors to General Petraeus do not believe that the Iraqi government will meet basic political goals set out by President Bush in conjunction with the troop surge is yet another indicator that goals and benchmarks set without real consequences will not have any effect. We need to be clear in our policy in Iraq, not only for the sake of our national security, but for the sake of the Iraqi government as well. Setting a firm and enforceable deadline for redeployment of troops is the path toward such clarity.”

Senator Dodd has been one of the leading Democrats in the Senate to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq of March 2008, and campaigned on that issue in Des Moines two weeks ago. He has begun airing ads in Iowa and New Hampshire highlighting these efforts and attributing, in part, the decisions of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to vote for the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment on the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would have established a timeline for withdrawal.

Dodd has yet to see significant gains in polling in Iowa on the Iraq issue or from the TV ads. Former Senator John Edwards and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson have both been on the air in Iowa over the last month, with Gov. Richardson seeing a significant increase in support in a recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll. Some Iowa Democrats believe that with Dodd on the air, it is only a matter of time before he begins to see an increase in support.

On the other side of the aisle, Arizona Senator John McCain has largely been critical of the two perceived front-runners on the Democratic side — Sens. Obama and Clinton — and has been a staunch supporter of the President’s surge strategy. As of this evening, Sen. McCain nor his campaign had offered any statement on the LA Times report.

Cross-posted at Iowa Independent.

2008: Dodd to vote NO on new Iraq supplemental

Published by
Chris Woods
May 23, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Caucuses, Democrats, Dodd, Iowa politics, Iraq and TV. 0 Comments

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning can be found here at the Dodd for President site and the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week - $8 billion a month - and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now - with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq - because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

2008: Dodd to host statewide forum on Iraq War at Drake today

Published by
Chris Woods
May 18, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Caucuses, Des Moines, Dodd, Drake University, Iowa politics, Iraq and Technology. 1 Comment

In case you haven’t heard about it from other places, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut will be hosting a statewide forum that will be broadcast to a variety of locations throughout the state — as well as on the web — live from Drake University today at noon. Lynda Waddington over at Iowa Independent talks to the Dodd Campaign about the technology used in broadcasting the event and how the campaign plans to move forward with the technology; she also has a graphic listing the other satellite locations for the broadcast across the state.

I plan to attend the event and report back on it, but in case you can’t make it to the event or any of the satellite locations, below is where the video will start streaming live at noon.

2008: I don’t get this

Published by
Chris Woods
March 23, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Caucuses, Clinton, Democrats, Energy, Iowa politics, Iraq and Vilsack, Tom. 6 Comments

According the Register and a multitude of other sources, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack will be endorsing Hillary Clinton on Monday at a major campaign announcement in Des Moines.

I’ll openly admit that I was warming up to Gov. Vilsack’s presidential run because of the amazing leadership steps he was taking on both Iraq and energy security. Being a presidential candidate at least considered in the rating tiers (unlike Kucinich), Vilsack was vocally calling on Congress to de-fund the war in Iraq so that we could end the killing and savagery going on over there, as well as save the lives of thousands of American men and women serving over in Iraq.

Meanwhile, it has been hard to chart Sen. Hillary Clinton’s path through the Iraq War field. She was originally for the war, and has been wishy-washy ever since. While it is clear she’s still working hard to firmly pick a position, I seriously doubted that Vilsack would so quickly endorse Sen. Clinton. I never believed the idea that Vilsack was a stalking-horse for Clinton, as Rolling Stone magazine and others suggested. And I think its pretty clear that his quick jump into the race and his rather fast exit left him little time to truly become the stalking-horse that Clinton needed in Iowa or anywhere else.

I’m more than willing to give Sen. Clinton a chance in this race — and I honestly want to be able to get to know her and her issues better. But she hasn’t opened herself up to the people in this state like the other candidates have done, either at the top tier or somewhere below.

At the end of it, I simply don’t get this move on his part, if this is indeed what is going to happen. When he was here several days ago at the cybercafe with bloggers, a former Vilsack staffer from the Internet Team asked Governor Bill Richardson point blank if he’d call on Congress to de-fund the War in Iraq. Richardson said yes. Does anyone out there legitimately think Hillary Clinton will ever take that step?

I sure don’t. And that’s why I’m confused.

US House passes Iraq Accountability Act

Published by
Chris Woods
March 23, 2007 in Bush Administration, Congress, Democrats, IA-01, IA-02, IA-03, IA-04, IA-05, Iraq, Latham, Tom, Radical Right and Republicans. 0 Comments

This morning, on a vote of 218-212, the US House passed the Iraq Accountability Act, which sits a pullout date for troops in Iraq by August of 2008 at the latest. It also approves more funding for the war, which has been a major point of contention among those members of the Progressive and Out-of-Iraq Caucuses in the House. In the end, House Democrats achieved a major victory by hitting 218 votes, the exact number needed for the bill to pass. Two Republicans voted for the bill while the rest voted against; 14 Democrats opposed the legislation as well (most being members of the two above caucuses) and one voted present.

Iowa’s three Democratic Representatives voted for the bill, while Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham declared, essentially, that they were troop killers.

Currently, President Bush is preparing to make a statement about the bill, where he’ll likely indicate his opposition to it again and signify that if the bill were to pass the Senate as well that he would veto the bill — declaring himself as Commander in Chief Troop Killer. The bill has been extremely divisive both in the real world and how Democrats online are responding to the bill.

The key takeaway point from this whole debate: Democrats have taken a small first step in a political minefield. The Progressive and Out-of-Iraq Caucuses have made significant gains and gotten significant strength in the process. Now, with these kind of bargaining chips, they’ve got to keep pushing harder and even more fiercely. This is the first step of many, let’s keep working.

IA-04: Tom Latham, troop killer

Published by
Chris Woods
March 21, 2007 in 2008 Elections, Blogs, Congress, Democrats, IA-01, IA-02, IA-03, IA-04, Iowa politics, Iraq, Latham, Tom, Radical Right and Republicans. 3 Comments

UPDATE: Read David Sirota’s memo to members of the House Progressive Caucus on why, in the end, they should support the Iraq Accountability Act.
- - - - - - - - -
Yesterday, Republican Tom Latham and all of the other Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee voted AGAINST a portion of the Democratic Iraq supplemental funding bill. The portion they voted against? Making sure our troops were fully armored, protected, trained, and rested before they were sent back to Iraq to serve. KagroX over at Daily Kos has the full story here with the full list of Republican “troop killers.” Speaker Pelosi’s blog has more on the provision here, with video of Rep. Jack Murtha defending the provision.

Today, local blogs across the country are taking action against the Republican troop killers and Political Forecast is going to be one of those blogs. Already Political Fallout, John Deeth, Blog for Iowa, and the Woodbury Democrat have attacked Latham for his vote and for his actions against the troops he supposedly supports. More Iowa blogs are expected to come out against Latham’s actions even later today.

Now, I understand that some Democrats are having a tough time swallowing the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill that the House Democrats are pushing. I agree with Gov. Tom Vilsack and others that the only way to end this war is to truly stand up and cut off funding. But their are political realities we must face: The only way to end this war is to have Democrats step up and take action. As Chris Bowers points out here, the progressive caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus have already essentially experienced defeat as the House Democrats have brought about this supplemental funding bill. However, if this bill gets voted down, we lose the provisions that require our troops to be out of Iraq by August 2008 at the latest and we end up losing the provisions that protect our troops from going back over to Iraq unprepared and unprotected.

We’re making strides in Congress, even if we lose battles like this. However, we have to make sure to keep pressing forward and the Iraq Supplemental is the only way to keep the pressure on the President and Washington Republicans.

Tom Latham voted to kill American troops by sending those returning to Iraq, whether via the surge or not, by sending the unprepared. House Democrats may not be able to stop the surge right now, but they can slow it down or at least send our troops back more prepared and ready than they currently are by passing this bill. It is a responsible step forward on a path that has no easy steps.

Selden Spencer, Latham’s likely Democratic opponent again in 2008, is already working hard in his race to beat Latham and reclaim the IA-04 for the men and women of Iowa who actually support our troops and don’t want to see them die. He’s been to Afghanistan as a medical professional and saw firsthand the type of injuries that war causes, particularly ones with strong insurgencies.

As KagroX wrote yesterday:

“The more who die, of course, the stronger becomes the Republican mantra that their deaths must not be in vain. For Republicans, more dead troops = more emotional heartstrings they can pull to continue their shell game. And the more heartstrings pulled, the more troops they’re free to kill. It’s the only part of the Iraq war that actually does pay for itself. Small wonder, then, that we’re entering the fifth year of this war, sending yet more troops into battle, and still sending them without what they need to survive the fight. In any other setting and with any other players, the plan would be considered lunacy. But for Republicans, the blood of the troops has become the oil in their political machine.

There is no other plausible excuse for it.”

Republicans are politically manipulating this war and letting young Americans die for electoral strategy. That is intolerable, inhumane, and essentially subhuman. It is a vile act and one that Democrats vehemently oppose.

A vote is likely to come on the Iraq Supplemental sometime tomorrow. Please encourage your representative in Congress to support the bill. Already, Iowa’s three Democrats have said they will support the supplemental funding bill, even if it is less than what they wanted.

Please make sure to also check out Matt Stoler’s post at MyDD here and KagroX’s two posts from today (here and here) on all of the other local blogs that have coordinated to call out the Republican troop killers from the House Appropriations Committee.

Tomorrow, the House vote can make a difference in this war. And come 2008, when we elect Selden Spencer and throw out Tom Latham, we’ll be able to make an even bigger difference.

About

You are currently browsing the Political Forecast weblog archives for the Iraq category.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Latest

RSS
www.flickr.com
ChrisWoods' photos More of ChrisWoods' photos

Subscribe

Subscribe to my RSS Feeds

Archives

Categories