Giuliani's supporters

Quotes from the Baltimore Sun:

Linda Sutter, 50, of Crescent City, Calif., who supports Giuliani because "I feel secure with him." After learning about his positions on immigration and other issues, the retired correctional officer acknowledged that she was "not completely informed. ... Some of those things might stop me from voting for him."

Laura Hancock, 59, who runs a small business with her husband in Placer County, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, said Giuliani's "leadership qualities" trump everything else.

"If we're not safe, nothing else matters," said Hancock, who is coordinating Giuliani's campaign in her county. The conservative Christian said the issue of abortion "is between a woman and God," but cuts short an interview after acknowledging that she isn't familiar with her candidate's positions on many issues.

Mike Gomez, 58, a county health department worker from Vallejo, is well aware of Giuliani's views on social issues - and disagrees with nearly all of them.

Still, for the first time, the conservative Republican is planning to vote for a presidential candidate who favors abortion rights. The overriding factor: Giuliani's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and his stand against terrorism.

News from the forgotten front

U.S. artillery rounds target Taliban fighters in Pakistan

The use of the largely ungoverned Waziristan area of Pakistan as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters has become a greater irritant between Washington and Islamabad since Pakistan put in place a peace agreement there in September that was intended to stop cross-border incursions.

Pakistani border forces, which had been active in stopping Taliban incursions into Afghanistan as recently as last spring, stopped offensive actions against them once the peace deal took effect, he said.

Members of Nicholson's brigade, which is based at Fort Drum, N.Y., recently were told that instead of going home this month after a yearlong tour, they will stay for an extra four months, until June.

The brigade of about 3,500 soldiers is being kept in Afghanistan because senior commanders decided they needed more forces to deal with an anticipated Taliban offensive this spring.

Mitt Romney on Energy Independence

Mitt Romney has a short 2 paragraph statement on his plan for Energy Independence:

We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Governor Romney: "We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy"

In 2005 he pulled Massachusetts out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an agreement which was intended to cut carbon dioxide emissions from Northeast power plants.

Mass. pulls out of agreement to cut power plant emissions

Along with New York, Massachusetts was a leader in forging the agreement over the past two years, and last month Romney called the agreement ''good business." But he later raised concerns about the impact the agreement would have on business energy costs.

Romney said last night that he could not endorse a plan that did not include a ''safety valve," one that would cap the amount power plants would have to pay if they exceed emissions limits -- costs that could be passed on to businesses and consumers.

...Romney's plan, however, includes thresholds that would allow power plants to exceed emission limits if the cost of controlling them becomes too high, a provision he and some businesses say will keep energy costs realistic.

Tom Vilsack's Energy Plan

Vilsack Energy Security Agenda

Adopt a low-carbon fuel standard to require all fuel providers by 2010 to reduce the amount of carbon produced by their fuel at a rate of 1% a year for ten years. This will create a 10% cumulative reduction by 2020.

Offer a new range of federal tax incentives, including a 25-cent per-gallon credit for the production of ethanol from cellular fiber.

Amend the Clean Air Act so that carbon emissions will be cut by 20% in each new coal plant built in the U.S after 2010. To achieve this goal, new coal-fired plants will be required to use Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (known as IGCC) or other emerging technologies to provide similar results in reducing carbon emissions.

Require that by 2020 all new power plants built in the United States be carbon-free. This requirement could be met with any available energy source, including wind, solar, geothermal, safe nuclear, and coal plants that use carbon capture and sequestration.

Enact a new renewable fuel standard (known as RFS) that will require annual increases in the use of renewable fuels in the US fuel market that achieves 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. Moreover, that standard would require that 45 billion of the 60 billion gallons be cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol or biodiesel.

Establish a new National Energy Security Trust Fund funded by repealing existing oil and gas tax breaks. Funds from this Trust will be used for research and development in renewable fuel production.

Set fuel efficiency standards so that, by 2030, cars are 50% more fuel efficient.

Encourage technological developments and offer incentives so that by 2040 America’s transportation system will be virtually petroleum-free. Further development of needed technologies—fuel cells, biofuels, plug-in biofuel hybrids or others—coupled with significant incentives for the purchase of petroleum-free automobiles will be used to achieve this goal.

Create a mandatory nationwide cap and trade program to limit emissions of greenhouse gases such that by 2050 America will achieve a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels.

Replace the Department of Energy with a new Department of Energy Security, to oversee and redefine the federal government’s role in energy policy. The reorganized department will act as an institutional advocate for innovation in energy policy, and will ensure accountability as the nation works towards achieving Vilsack’s energy security goals.

A Missed Opportunity with Iran

The Washington Post adds background to the story that the Iranians were ready to sit down with the Americans in May of 2003 :

Guldimann attached a one-page Iranian document labeled "Roadmap" that listed U.S. and Iranian aims for potential negotiations, putting on the table such issues as an end to Iran's support for anti-Israeli militants, action against terrorist groups on Iranian soil and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Remember, this was one of the justifications of the Iraq war. The Bush administration argued that toppling Saddam and showing our strength would transform the Middle East. Getting the Iranians to stop funding Hezbollah and accept Israel's right to exist would've been seen as a total vindication of that concept. Even if the Iranians had ultimately balked, the U.S. would have proved its willingness to try diplomatic avenues before turning to military ones.

Guldimann's two-page fax prompted a debate among foreign policy professionals on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity four years ago to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran at a time when Washington appeared at the height of its power after the invasion of Iraq and Iran had not mastered uranium enrichment. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was questioned about the document on Capitol Hill last week. She said she did not recall seeing it when she was national security adviser. "I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing," she said.

The State Department denies this was a real Iranian appeal. They accuse the Swiss ambassador of making the whole thing up:

"This document did not come through official channels but rather was a creative exercise on the part of the Swiss ambassador," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday. "The last 30 years are filled with examples of individuals claiming to represent Iranian views. We have offered to Iran a chance to sit across the table from us and discuss their nuclear issue and anything else they would like, should they simply, verifiably suspend their uranium-enrichment activities."

Of course, what are the official channels when you refuse to speak with the other side?

3 years after this appeal:

Iran has started small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs, diplomats said Monday.

Russ Feingold (2001) and (2002): Fight al Qaeda not Saddam

2001

There is no reason to suggest that the action we take here today is required in advance of any immediate military response by the President. In the interest of demonstrating our national resolve to act firmly and decisively, however, and as a demonstration of our commitment to working in close cooperation with our Commander in Chief to respond to this aggression, we act today to authorize the use of force, as required by the War Powers Resolution.

Like any legislation, this resolution is not perfect. I have some concern that readers may misinterpret the preamble language that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism as a new grant of power; rather it is merely a statement that the President has existing constitutional powers. I am gratified that in the body of this resolution, it does not contain a broad grant of powers, but is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11. And I am particularly gratified that this resolution explicitly abides by and invokes the War Powers Resolution.

In taking this action today, we are not responding to a distant threat to international peace and security; we are responding to a direct attack on the United States. This is not a humanitarian response to a foreign crisis, but a defensive action to protect the lives of Americans here at home.

If this is indeed to be a war, then the President should seek a declaration of war. We cannot allow our cherished Constitution to become a dead letter. And it should go without saying that to declare a war, he must identify our adversary.

2002

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.

Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.

And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.

The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.

Al Gore (2002)

In September 2002, Al Gore delivered a speech opposing the push for war with Iraq:

I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

I don't think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.

The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration's failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run - even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

This is the speech William Safire branded "an artful antiwar polemic" which was simply posturing for a 2004 campaign.

He referred to Prime Minister Tony Blair as "getting into what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of supposed doubts about Bush's motivation. By so doing, Gore crossed swords with an un-wobbly ally not conflicted about the coming conflict.

The day after Gore's self-contradictory pushmipullyu of a speech, Blair presented a 50-page dossier from British intelligence detailing the dangers to the world from Saddam, including evidence of his present possession of "mobile biological weapons facilities."

Illinois State Senator Barack Obama (2002)

Speaking in Chicago October 2002:

I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

And here in an interview a month later:

If (the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam) has happened, what the debate's really going to be about is; what's our long term commitment there? How much is it going to cost? What does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq? How do we stabilize and make sure that this country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shias and the Kurds and the Sunnis?

What I would have been concerned about was a carte blanche to the administration for a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes that I'm not sure sets a good precedent.

Senator Clinton (2002) : Supporting the Use of Force against Iraq

In 2002 Hillary was one of 77 Senators who voted to give George Bush authorization to use force against Iraq:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

This was certainly not undisputed. 23 U.S. Senators and 133 U.S. Representatives, along with U.N. inspectors in Iraq, and most other countries in the world believed Saddam Hussein posed no threat to his neighbors and certainly none to the United States.

I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

This is the same asinine comment we've been hearing ever since - Support the policy or you hate the troops.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.

You are a United States Senator. The constitution gives you the authority to declare war. You cannot simply hand that obligation to anyone else, and certainly not to pressure a vote in the U.N.

If Saddam Hussein was a real threat to the country, you were obligated to debate that threat on the floor and vote a declaration of war, if necessary. Passing the buck on your most important responsibility was a coward's act and that's true of every Senator who voted yea, whether they believed in the war or not.

Science and Religion

The New York Times has an article on the tension between science and creationism and asks whether a University may deny a degree to a person who's fundamental beliefs contradict their professional ones:

May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?

Answers: No, Yes and No, respectively.

Science degrees have to be awarded on the basis of the work alone.

The article presents the case of 3 researchers, a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is at most 10,000 years old, but studies reptiles which died out 65 million year ago; a Los Alamos geophysicist who also believes in young earth creationism and a science teacher working toward a doctorate in education, whose dissertation concerned teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution.

The first researcher separated his professional and religious views. No one would have thought he was a creationist by reading his papers:

The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

The second studies the interior of the Earth, his views on evolution are as irrelevant to his work as his views on string theory.

The third is a different character altogether. Although the Times article barely mentions it, his Ph.D. was derailed for ethical reasons directly related to his work. He was attempting to "prove" the value of teaching creationism through fraudulent research with a committee composed of zero experts in his chosen field. Inside Higher Ed gives a better overview of that case:

Under Ohio State rules, two members of Leonard’s dissertation committee should have been in the science education division. But the three members of the committee were in the fields of technology education, entomology and nutrition. “A dissertation committee that lacks any experts in the field is, to say the least, suspicious,” said a letter three professors (Brian McEnnis, in mathematics; Jeffrey K. McKee, in anthropology; and Steve Rissing, in evolution, ecology and organismal biology) sent to Ohio State’s graduate dean, protesting the planned dissertation defense.

In the case of Leonard’s scheduled defense, the faculty volunteer was an assistant professor of French and Italian. When she realized the controversial nature of the dissertation, she withdrew.

The only troubling quote in the Times piece was from professor Dini of Texas Tech:

“Scientists do not base their acceptance or rejection of theories on religion, and someone who does should not be able to become a scientist.”

Science doesn't need to be protected from fools. Creationism isn't science because it doesn't explain fundamental observations about our world. Evolution is science because it does.

Its getting hot in here - Do you think we should turn off the furnace?

Now that even George Bush believes in global warming, it appears we're going to treat it like a terminal illness, skipping past 3 of the 5 stages of grief, from denial, straight to acceptance. Everyone has tossed up their hands and decided, its done, we can't do anything to stop it now.

Fareed Zakaria writes the latest entry in this theme, telling us we cannot stop it, we have to get used to it.

Three years ago the Pew Foundation sponsored an excellent study, "Coping With Global Climate Change," which focused on the role of adaptation. The report found that moving in this direction would be costly and fraught with uncertainty and error. Yet, the authors point out, humankind's long history has shown it's possible; we have adapted as the environment around us has changed. The costs of relocating seaside communities are extremely high, but they will be even higher if we wait 20 years. The most important conclusion of the Pew study was that early planning is far more effective than managing the consequences of a breakdown. In other words, strengthening the levees in New Orleans costs much, much less than rebuilding the city.

He's right as far as he goes. But, unfortunately, he plays straight into the hands of those who claim we should do nothing at all (why stop smoking if you have terminal lung cancer?)

We're now virtually certain that human activity is driving climate change, but this isn't a zero sum game. If we attack the problem now, the Earth will still get warmer, but manageably so. If we ignore it, things will be catastrophically worse.

The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that by 2100, temperatures will have risen by somewhere between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees, and as a result, sea levels will rise by 18 to 59 centimeters. The trouble is, if you accept all these facts and theories about global warming, it is difficult to see how any human response launched today can avert it.

Whether the temperature rises 1 or 6 degrees depends on what we do now. Whether sea level rises 18 or 59 centimeters is something we control. Our first focus needs to be on containing the damage not on getting used to it.

Arrogance, Mistrust and Failure

Rumors of War

America wanted Iran's help in Afghanistan, and Iran gave it, partly out of fear of an angry superpower and partly in order to be rid of its troublesome Taliban neighbors. In time, hard-liners on both sides were able to undo the efforts of diplomats to build on that foundation. The damage only worsened as those hawks became intoxicated with their own success. The secret history of the Bush administration's dealings with Iran is one of arrogance, mistrust and failure. But it is also a history that offers some hope.

The fear dissipated after Sept. 20, when the FBI announced that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But there was new reason for cooperation: for years Tehran had been backing the Afghan guerrillas fighting the Taliban, Osama bin Laden's hosts. Suddenly, having U.S. troops next door in Afghanistan didn't seem like a bad idea. American and Iranian officials met repeatedly in Geneva in the days before the Oct. 7 U.S. invasion. The Iranians were more than supportive. "In fact, they were impatient," says a U.S. official involved in the talks, who asked not to be named speaking about topics that remain sensitive. "They'd ask, 'When's the military action going to start? Let's get going!'

Opinions differ wildly over how much help the Iranians actually were on the ground. But what is beyond doubt is how critical they were to stabilizing the country after the fall of Kabul.

Tehran backed up the political support with financial muscle: at a donor's conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $500 million (at the time, more than double the Americans') to help rebuild Afghanistan. In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq.

Scott Ritter gives advice to a Democratic Congress

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts

When it comes to Iraq, newly empowered Democrats in Congress are getting a free ride, so to speak. While the honorable (and right) thing to do would be to combine their just criticism of the President's policy with a vision (and corresponding plan) of their own on how to proceed in Iraq, the Democrats instead seem to have taken the less risky and more politically savvy path of simply pointing an accusatory finger at the President, demanding that he fix what he broke. There is no coherent, broad-based Democratic plan for Iraq other than to criticize the President. In the case of Iraq, Democrats have demonstrated that they are just as capable of letting American service members die in order to preserve their own political ambition as their Republican counterparts are.

If I were to address a Democrat Theme Team equivalent, I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

If hearings show no case for war with Iran, then Congress must act to insure that the United States cannot move toward conflict with that nation on the strength of executive dictate alone. As things currently stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress.

Sam Brownback: choose the tax system that works for you!

Sam Brownback's recent announcement included a series of initiatives he would pursue as President. There were some standard Republican ideas - no tax increases, use market forces to solve the health care problem, keep God in public institutions, etc. But there were a couple of puzzlers: Apparently, the number one fear in America is getting cancer. Brownback also has a strange proposal to set up two tax systems - the current one and an alternative flat tax. Choose the one you like! How the government manages that is a question left to the reader.

And we need more opportunities—not more taxes. I've never voted for a tax increase, and I certainly will never sign one!

We need a different income tax system altogether. This one, the Internal Revenue Code, should be taken behind the barn and killed with a dull axe.

I propose the creation of an alternative flat tax, which lets the people choose which system works for them.

We need a social security system in which all Americans are given a choice in how to prepare for their retirement; a choice they do not presently have. No one should be required to leave the current system, and everyone must be guaranteed their current level of benefits. Every American should be given this freedom.

Let's put our energies into conquering the number one fear in America…the fear of getting cancer.

We need high quality, affordable health care for everyone. Here, let me step back for a moment. I am a conservative. A conservative that believes in addressing problems, not ignoring them. We must address our health care problems with market-based solutions, not government-run health care. We can…and we must. This topic requires our urgent attention.

We must be energy self reliant in North America in the next fifteen years—at the same time we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. This is possible using our ingenuity, resources, and determination.

Also, we need judges who want to be judges…not legislators.

... the last thing we need in America is to take God out of our public lives and institutions! We need to embrace our nation's motto "In God We Trust," not be ashamed of it. Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation. To embrace Him leads to renewal…for individuals and for nations.

Mitt Romney wants a line item veto; would cut regulations on business

Mitt Romney believes economic growth is being "choked off" by excessive taxation and spending, regulations and other burdens on businesses. He would loosen up the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which was written in response to the multiple corporate scandals including the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. He also believes that the businesses are burdened by an "out-of-control" tort system, blaming lawyers for "cashing out our country's future". He wants national laws governing these torts, rather than allowing forum shopping at the state level.

Making The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts Permanent: "Which course is better for America? A European model of high taxes and regulations? Or, low taxes and free trade - the Ronald Reagan model? That's the choice the next President will make. Some are already fighting to implement a massive tax increase. Instead, we should make the tax cuts permanent."

Fiscal Discipline: Unless Given The Line-Item Veto, Governor Romney Would Veto Any Appropriations Bills If They Exceed Spending Targets. "I have a fairly simple idea for keeping spending in check. Give Congress a spending target and then insist that it is met. If Congress does not meet the spending targets, then its appropriations bills should be vetoed. I regularly exercised my veto power while governor. The alternative is for the Congress to vest the President with a power held in some form by 43 governors, including this Governor - the line-item veto."

Rudy Giuliani: Mayor of New York (1999)

Civil Liberties Union Files Brief Supporting Brooklyn Museum In Controversy with Mayor Giuliani

According to news reports, the Mayor has said he would also cut off city financing to any other publicly supported cultural institution that mounts an exhibit that he considers an attack on religion.

But, as the civil liberties union points out in legal papers, such retaliation runs counter to the principles of the First Amendment. Both sides in the battle will enter court this Friday to present their arguments in the high-profile controversy.

Bill Richardson: Look to New Mexico and see America's future

In his recent DNC speech, Bill Richardson cited his record as Governor of New Mexico to demonstrate how he'd lead as President.

One of the first things I did as Governor was reinstate collective bargaining for public employees. We secured the first public works labor agreement in New Mexico history. And we made our prevailing wage a union wage.

To create all those jobs, we first passed a specific tax credit for creating good paying jobs. We made the rural jobs tax credit permanent, enacted a three-year tax holiday for high-tech startups, and invested state money in local companies that showed great promise for success and job creation.

We balanced the budget. But we also increased school funding by $600 million dollars … and we made sure it all went into the classroom and not the bureaucracy.

We expanded state health insurance to cover every child, lowered the cost of health care for working families, and we’re helping small businesses create purchasing pools so they can get the same low insurance rates as large employers.

Two of the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party are equal access to an excellent education and equal access to health care. For too long in this country, we’ve had neither.

I set tough standards to reduce greenhouse emissions. We’ve invested directly in energy efficiency. And no other state has done as much to promote renewable energy – with tax credits for using wind, solar, and biofuels … we’ve eliminated taxes on hybrid cars … and we’re requiring utility companies to start producing energy from renewable sources.

John Edwards has a Universal Health Care plan

John Edwards focused the majority of his recent DNC speech on anti-poverty measures and the need for Universal Health Care.

Fragmented System of Insurance: ... Workers lose insurance when they lose or change their jobs. Worker mobility discourages insurers from investing in care that would prevent later, larger costs for illnesses like diabetes and heart disease. Meanwhile, businesses spent $16 billion in 1999 administering their own benefit plans, an inefficient and duplicative process. [Woolhandler et al, 2003]

Small businesses and Americans without insurance from their job, including entrepreneurs, part-time workers, and independent contractors, must turn to an unpredictable and often unaffordable insurance market. Applicants with the wrong age, weight, job, medical or prescription drug history face unaffordable premiums or cannot get coverage at all. In California, insurers often refuse to cover users of dozens of widely prescribed medicines as well as roofers, athletes, and firefighters, even if they are in good health and can afford coverage. In 2005, nearly 60 percent of adults seeking individual coverage had difficulty finding an affordable plan. One in five were denied coverage, charged a higher price, or had a specific health condition excluded from coverage. [LA Times, 1/8/2007; Collins et al, 2006]

First: Business Responsibility. Businesses have a responsibility to support their employees’ health. They will be required to either provide a comprehensive health plan to their employees or to contribute to the cost of covering them through Health Markets.

Second: Government Responsibility. Government also has a responsibility to help families obtain insurance.

Third: New Health Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create regional Health Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans.

Finally: Individual Responsibility. Once insurance is affordable, everyone will be expected to take responsibility for themselves and their families by obtaining health coverage.

Experience

The Carpetbagger Report makes a good point about the relative experience of the best known presidential candidates. Neither Clinton, Edwards or Romney can push the point very far against Obama. In the end it depends on what you think of a state Senatorship.

And one last word about experience. Clearly, in his third year in the U.S. Senate, Obama enters the presidential race with the least federal experience among the leading Democrats. But I have a hunch this isn’t going to hold up as a credible knock on Obama’s candidacy, and here’s why:

Years in elected office:

* Obama: 10 years (7 state Senate, 3 U.S. Senate)
* Clinton: 8 years (8 U.S. Senate)
* Edwards: 6 years (6 U.S. Senate)
* Giuliani: 8 years (two, four-year mayoral terms)
* Romney: 4 years (one four-year gubernatorial term)
* McCain: 25 years (4 U.S. House, 21 U.S. Senate)

In this respect, Obama’s background doesn’t look that thin, does it?

Apparently, dissent is treason in Australia too

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Says Al-Qaida Is Praying for an Obama Victory

Australia's conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after the first-term U.S. senator announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Hillary Clinton opposes Military Commissions

For those of us who hope the next election is decided on the issues, Hillary Clinton's official campaign website is a disappointment. There is no On the Issues link. There's Hillary's story, filled with video testimonials about her life as a mother and first lady, there's a Newsroom filled with stories of her unbeatability, her religious roots and her fundraising prowess. You have to dig a layer deeper to find her stand in speeches she's given over the last year, although that remains pretty sparse at the moment.

A better option is her official Senate site.

Senator Clinton Underscores Opposition to Military Commissions Act

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized her opposition to ill-considered military commissions legislation rushed to the Senate floor that has “serious implications for our national security interests abroad, the rights of Americans at home, our reputation in the world and the safety of our troops.” She emphasized that the Senate has a responsibility to get this right and that “we must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our values.”

“Democrats and Republicans alike believe that terrorists must be caught, captured, sentenced, punished. I believe there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes against humanity. But in the process of accomplishing what I believe is essential for our security, we must hold on to our values and set an example that we can point to with pride, not shame. Those captured are going nowhere. They are imprisoned now. So we should follow the duty given us by the Supreme Court and carefully craft the right piece of legislation to try and punish them. The President acted without authority and it is our duty now to be careful in handing this President just the right amount of authority to get the job done,” Senator Clinton underscored.

Plans and Intentions

Jason Steck, over at The Moderate Voice complains that paranoia is running rampant about the prospect of war with Iran. Referencing this editorial, He stresses the difference between the words "plans" and "intentions".

A similar situation is the more probable reading of current U.S. policy towards Iran. The United States wishes to deter Iran from building nuclear weapons. In order for deterrence to work, it is necessary to maintain a “credible threat” of something that you might do if the other side does that which you wish to prevent. In short, since the whole point of deterrence is to raise doubts in the mind of an adversary that a given course of action might be costly, it is necessary to demonstrate that you have the capability to carry out a threat of a military response.

Of course, the flip side of that is that you have to give your adversary a credible second option. Iran has already seen what the U.S. policy is regarding simple denials, not to mention the actual nonexistence of nuclear weapons programs. Iraq was completely incapable of convincing the Bush administration that it had no WMD program. The failure of the UN inspectors to find evidence only convinced GWB that Iraq must be really effective at hiding their program and became the casus belli itself.

We've also declared that we won't speak with the Iranians, so they have no diplomatic out available.

Jason is right that the U.S. plans for wars it will never fight, we've undoubtedly got plans to fight the Russians and the Chinese (possibly even the French). But if senior U.S. officials were publicly claiming that we have no intentions of bombing Moscow, but we've been planning the attacks, would he think that was pragmatic deterrence or complete lunacy?

Barack Obama officially declares his candidacy

Poverty, Health Care, Energy Independence are central themes in his announcement speech.

All of us know what those challenges are today - a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.

...

For the last six years we've been told that our mounting debts don't matter, we've been told that the anxiety Americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant wages are an illusion, we've been told that climate change is a hoax, and that tough talk and an ill-conceived war can replace diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight. And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.

....

Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis. We can control costs by focusing on prevention, by providing better treatment to the chronically ill, and using technology to cut the bureaucracy. Let's be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president's first term.

Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. We can harness homegrown, alternative fuels like ethanol and spur the production of more fuel-efficient cars. We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

....

We can work together to track terrorists down with a stronger military, we can tighten the net around their finances, and we can improve our intelligence capabilities. But let us also understand that ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity to millions around the globe.

Duncan Hunter: We won't know if the war was successful for years

Duncan Hunter defends the conduct of Bush and Rumsfeld in the Iraq war

"When a person says, 'Are we winning or losing?' I would say, this is like a cancer operation," Hunter, of California, said yesterday in an interview with a board of Monitor editors. "You don't know until five years after the operation. And if five years from now, after the Americans leave, we have a dictator who takes over Iraq who's worse than Saddam Hussein, if the cancer comes back, then you know it hasn't been successful."

In the meantime, Hunter said, U.S. troops must continue training Iraqi troops and building a military that can support the country's free government. U.S. forces are in the second phase of the three-step pattern America has followed for 60 years in bringing freedom to other nations, he said.

"First, you stand up a free government," he said. "You then stand up a military apparatus capable of protecting that free government. And number three, the Americans leave. . . . And right now, we're in the second phase, which is by far the most difficult."

War is a clumsy process, he said, and many of those who criticize the actions of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush are operating under the assumption that casualties could have been avoided if different decisions had been made. "The falsehood is that somehow they could have done it better and that somehow war could be conducted more painlessly and more effortlessly and with less collateral damage," Hunter said. "I reject the idea that there's a smooth road that could have been taken and that because things haven't been smooth, there have been these major mistakes."

Of course, one could argue that there'd be no casualties if the war in Iraq hadn't been waged in the first place.

Hunter also outlined his plan for moving through the war's current phase. By his estimation, 20,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and are now stationed in the more peaceful provinces of the nation. He recently recommended that the president move those troops into Baghdad and the surrounding areas. The Iraqi troops need combat experience, Hunter said, and a sense of unit cohesion. It would also be beneficial to have people who speak the language in those urban areas, he said.

Hunter was noncommittal on the question of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.

Tom Tancredo: This is a clash of civilizations

Tom Tancredo believes we are currently involved in a clash of civilizations, and that both Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant victories in that fight, but he also believes we must not stay to referee a civil war.

On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.

In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq.

We have purchased an oppportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased.

Mitt Romney believes Iraq is part of a global war against Jihadists

Mitt Romney wholeheartedly supports the president's policy in Iraq and advocates strong measures against Iran as well. At his official site, under the category Defeating the Jihadists he posts:

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'

On Iraq in particular:

I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it.

Meanwhile, he advocates strong measures against Iran, including sanctions, while condemning Hillary Clinton for suggesting diplomatic engagement with that country:

I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.

Ten days ago, I was in Israel and heard firsthand from those who have been on the front lines of the war against the Jihadist radicals. Indeed, just a few months ago, the Israelis were confronted with a war by Hizbullah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria.

Ron Paul: Don't bomb Iran

Don't Do It, Mr. President

It’s a bad idea.
There’s no need for it.
There’s great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don’t need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don’t we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel.
Besides-- it’s illegal.
It’s unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don’t need it.
We don’t want it.
So, Mr. President, don’t do it.
Don’t bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?

Sam Brownback opposes escalation, supports partition of Iraq

Brownback opposes sending more troops to Iraq

"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," Brownback said while traveling in Iraq. "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."

Brownback had previously supported a short-term surge of troops if it could help achieve long-term political stability, which the Bush Administration has said it hopes a troop surge will help achieve.

But Brownback rejected that argument after meeting this week with several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and U.S. military commanders.

"I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other," Brownback said.

Brownback, a conservative who is running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, is among a handful of Republican senators to publicly break with Bush on the president's plans to escalate U.S. military involvement.

Brownback has supported the war, but in recent weeks has moved away from the Bush Administration's positions.

He has called for dividing Iraq into three relatively autonomous zones - Kurdish, Shi'a and Sunni - within a federated country. And he also said he generally supported the findings of the Iraq Study Group last month, which Brownback said provided the U.S. the opportunity to "reset the table."

John McCain's Resolution

Senators McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Cornyn, Hutchison, Domenici, Thune, Hatch, and Roberts to introduce Iraq Resolution

(Stripped of the Whereas's which I find make the document unreadable)

Over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States armed forces, and deserve the support of all Americans;

Past mistakes in U.S. strategy, combined with other difficulties, have led to a dire security situation in Iraq characterized by insurgent activity and sectarian violence;

A failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself;

No amount of additional U.S. forces can effect this outcome unless the people and government of Iraq take difficult political steps toward reconciliation;

These steps must include the fulfillment of military, political, and economic commitments that the Prime Minister of Iraq has made to the United States of America and to the people of Iraq;

Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including:

(1) Deploying a significant number of new Iraqi security forces to partner with U.S. units in securing Baghdad;

(2) Assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in a timely manner;

(3) Disarming individual militias and ensuring security forces are accountable to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq;

(4) Ensuring equitable distribution of government resources regardless of sect or ethnicity;

(5) Passing legislation to ensure that Iraq's oil resources benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and implementing such legislation;

(6) Building an effective, independent judiciary that will uphold the rule of law and ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens of Iraq;

(7) Pursuing all those who engage in violence or threaten the security of the Iraqi population, regardless of sect or political affiliation;

(8) Passing and implementing new legislation that will reform the de-Ba'athification process;

(9) Conducting provincial elections;

(10) Ensuring a fair process for amending the constitution of Iraq;

(11) Expending promised funds to provide basic services and employment opportunities for all Iraqis, including a $10 billion fund for reconstruction, and ensuring that these funds reach Sunni areas, including Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad and largely Sunni Anbar Province;

Leaders in the Administration and Congress have made it clear to the Iraqi leadership that America's commitment is not open-ended and that if the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and the people of Iraq;

The moderate states of the Middle East have an interest in a successful conclusion to the war and Iraq and should increase their constructive assistance toward this end;

In the fall of 2006, leaders in the Administration and Congress, as well as recognized experts outside government, acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and required a change in strategy;

The Government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated above.

Rudy Giuliani supports the President on Iraq, wants to think about Iran

Considering his claim to fame is his response to the 9/11 attack on New York City, Rudy Giuliani's official site has remarkably no information on his views on foreign policy, the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq. You can read short remarks about his record fighting crime, cutting taxes, fiscal responsibility, welfare reform, education, quality of life and protecting children, but nothing on his views of the most pressing issue of the day. Hopefully, its just a new site that will expand quickly.

Fortunately (via the independent GiulianiBlog), He gave an interview to Sean Hannity about his presidential candidacy.

HANNITY: Let me ask about Iraq. You've generally been very supportive of the president and the Iraq war. Is there anything you would have done differently? Do you think there's been any mistakes made?

GIULIANI: .... But here's the reality of it: We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. I mean, sometimes, when you listen to these debates in Congress, and you listen to the politicians debating, you sort of get the impression that they think we're in control of whether we're at war or not.

It doesn't matter what we think. They're at war with us. They want to come here and kill us. And they did on September 11, and they did a long time before September 11. Way back in 1993, they came to this city and killed people.

Got that? They're at war with us. Who are they? Obviously he's not talking about the Iraqis here. Either he's refering to the entire Muslim world or some subset of them, but he's deliberately vague.

GIULIANI: So we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq. And getting Iraq correctly, in other words, getting stability there is real important. And I support what the president asked for support to do and what General Petraeus has asked for support to do, not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never any guarantee at war.

But if we can come out with a correct solution or a better solution in Iraq, it's going to make the whole War on Terror go better. We got to get beyond it. We've got to get beyond Iraq.

HANNITY: In essence, have people forgotten?

Have people forgotten what? Nobody's called for a withdrawal from Afghanistan or an end to the fight against Al Qaeda. Is he asking whether we've forgotten that Iraq attacked the WTC?

GIULIANI: It's natural. I mean, you have a terrible attack like September 11, 2001. Right in the aftermath of it, there's tremendous unity. We understand that we have to be on offense against terrorists, that we have to make it bipartisan, that it isn't about being a Democrat or a Republican. It's about being an American.

Now you get further away, and that lesson isn't as vivid. And all wars have that happen. This is a difficult thing to do, but we've got to start getting beyond Iraq.

We've got to be thinking about Iran. We have to think about Syria. We have to be thinking about Pakistan and Afghanistan and making sure that the transition in Afghanistan goes correctly. We have to be ready for the fact that, whatever happens in Iraq, success or failure -- success will help us in the War on Terror. Failure will hurt us. But the war is still going to go on. They're still going to want to come here and kill us.

Straight out of the Bush/Cheney playbook. If you don't follow me THEY WILL KILL YOU. And now they include Iran and Syria maybe even Pakistan! Considering all the debate over bombing Iran these days, shouldn't he be clearer about what he means when he says we should be "thinking about Iran". Everyone's already thinking about Iran. They're wondering if we're about to open up a third war.

HANNITY: If you're president, and the Baker Commission recommends sitting down with Ahmadinejad and then Syria, would you take that recommendation? Would you sit down with them like that?

GIULIANI: I thought one of the mistakes of that recommendation is you almost can't put it up front. The minute you put it up front, you give them all the leverage and you take all the leverage away from us. That recommendation would have been better delivered quietly, secretly.

And then you -- then, through back channels, you find out. Can I achieve something with Ahmadinejad? Can I achieve something with Syria? Right now, it doesn't look that way.

The better thing to do in Iran is to put pressure on them and to let them know that we will not accept their being a nuclear power. The nightmare of the Cold War was nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person. I don't want to live through that nightmare.

Got that? Diplomacy only gives your opponent an unfair advantage. So a Giuliani presidency would look pretty much like the Bush presidency in terms of foreign policy. More competent, we hope, but ideologically identical.

John Edwards calls for an immediate drawdown

And that change must begin in Iraq. President Bush's decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is terribly wrong. There is no military solution to this civil war. Instead of increasing the number of troops in Iraq, we should immediately withdraw 40–50,000 troops. In order for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving. Since the President refuses to change course, Congress must use its power of the purse and block funding for an escalation of war. Over 80,000 people from across the country have joined me in calling on Congress to stop President Bush's misguided plan to escalate the war. Congress has the power to stop this escalation — they should use it.

Dodd - the focus on Iraq is threatening national security

Via Firedoglake

While the President has been focused solely on Iraq, we have been losing the battle all around the world. Beyond Iran's nuclear ambitions we have allowed the success in Afghanistan to slip away and the Taliban are actually making a comeback. We now have seven times more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan—and that’s certainly one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Kucinich calls for Reconciliation among Iraqis

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

Tom Vilsack calls for cutting funding and ending the war in Iraq

'08 Contender on Iraq: 'Cut Off Funding'

"Those in Congress who voted for the war, those in Congress who have voted to continue the war, and those in Congress who have funded the war, can surely vote to end the war," Vilsack told members of the Democratic National Committee during the second day of a presidential candidates' forum in Washington.

"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."

Joe Biden's Bosnia style plan for Iraq

The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority and women's rights and the creation of a jobs program. It would require a regional non-aggression pact, overseen by the U.N. Security Council. And it would allow us to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007.

This plan is not partition – in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croatsand Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies.

The course we're on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country. The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?

Richardson: McCain "Dead Wrong" About Troops

The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq’s political crisis through military escalation.

There are no quick or easy answers to the crisis in Iraq. Our choices are between bad options and worse ones. Some prefer military escalation. Some choose staying the course. These options are illusions. The only realistic choice we have is to stand down militarily and let the Iraqis stand up and face the political crisis which only they can resolve.

I’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I worked in this region...we should harbor no illusions. This withdrawal will not be pretty. People will die. But fewer will die than if we stay. There are no guarantees that our departure will end the civil war, but it is sure to continue so long as we stay. The Iraqis might, or might not, resolve their political crisis. It is up to them. They distrust and fear one another, and this makes it very tough. But they share one goal – they don’t want to destroy their own country. To save it, they need to stop killing each other and start compromising. And we need to get out of the way.

Hillary Clinton attacks Bush's conduct of the war

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks on Iraq on the Senate Floor

First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1, and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops. The President has finally said this is not an open-ended commitment in Iraq, but he is providing the Iraqis with an open-ended presence of American troops.

Like Bush's surge plan, a cap is a change in tactics, not a fundamental change in strategy. What is our goal in Iraq? She doesn't mention it in her speech.

...
Second, as a means to increase our leverage with the Iraqi government and to clearly send a message that there are consequences to their inaction, I would impose conditions for continued funding of the Iraqi security forces and the private contractors working for the Iraqis. My legislation would require certification that the security forces were free of sectarian and militia influence and were actually assuming greater responsibility for Iraqi security along with other conditions.

Third... My bill requires the Bush Administration to certify that Iraq has disarmed the militias; has ensured that a law has finally been passed for the equitable sharing of oil revenues; that the Iraqi government, under American influence and even pressure, has made the constitutional changes necessary to ensure rights for minority communities; that the de-Baathification process has been reversed to allow teachers, professionals, and others who join the Baath party as a means to get a job to serve in the Iraqi government. I would also require the Administration to engage in a regional diplomatic initiative including all of Iraq's neighbors to address Iraq's future and to understand and convey clearly that the United States expects Iraq's neighbors in the stability and security of the new Iraqi state. If these conditions are not met or are not on their way to being met within six months, a new Congressional authorization requirement would be triggered.

A new Congressional authorization requirement? That is the consequence for continued failure in Iraq! Senator Clinton needs to lay out her view of the Iraq war, what the purpose is and how to get there. She obviously believes American forces can accomplish something, but I've no idea what. In 6 months another 15 - 20,000 Iraqis will be slaughtered in this war.

Barack Obama calls for an end to the war in Iraq

Floor Statement on Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

January 30, 2007

Mr. President, today in Iraq, we sadly find ourselves at the very point I feared most when I opposed giving the President the open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 - an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences in the midst of a country torn by civil war. The American people have waited and the American people have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come, and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief the tragic loss of thousands of brave young American soldiers.

...The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.