IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/30/07
Americans Killed: 3081
Americans Wounded: 23,114
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
"We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Pfc. Darrell W. Shipp, 25, of San Antonio, Texas, died Jan. 25 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Lt. Cmdr. Jane E. Lanham, 43, of Owensboro, Ky., died Sep. 19, 2006, in Bahrain.

*Petty Officer 3rd Class Roger A. Napper, 20, of Greensburg, PA died Oct. 7, 2006, in Bahrain.

*Seaman Sandra S. Grant, 23, of Linwood, N.C., died Dec. 31, 2006, in the Arabian Sea.

*Pfc. Nathan P. Fairlie, 21, of Candor, N.Y., died in Baqubah, Iraq on Jan. 26.

* Sgt. Alexander H. Fuller, 21, of Centerville, MA died Jan 25 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Pfc. Michael C. Balsley, 23, of Hayward, CA died Jan 25 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Maj. Alan R. Johnson, 44, of Yakima, WA (61st Washingtonian) died Jan. 26 in Balad, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Anthony C. Melia, 20, of Thousand Oaks, CA died Jan. 27 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Emboldening the Enemy

Sometimes the anger I feel when I read something like the statement from new Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he believes a resolution by the US Congress expressing (even if in a non-binding way) their disapproval of George Bush's blind insistence on the escalation of the Iraq occupation, "...certainly emboldens the enemy..." keeps me from finding the words to write. Fortunately Darryl Holman over at Hominid Views says it all:

After producing a "short-list" of real and imagined enemies of the United States, Darryl runs down a pretty good list of things that might also embolden an enemy:

• Illegally invading a sovereign nation, in contradiction of international law.
• Leaving weapons and explosive stashes, formerly under U.N. control, unguarded for insurgents to loot.
• Needlessly killing tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.
• Chest thumping contests with Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.
• Turning over Saddam Hussein to a lawless lynch mob.
• Incompetence in managing the post-invasion period in Iraq, leading to a degenerating environment for Iraqis.
• Sending more soldiers into Iraq to be killed and injured.
• Widespread general arrogance and condescension on the part of the U.S. in dealing with foreign governments.

With so many examples of things that can embolden an enemy, I wonder what we might find to embolden a Congress intent on sending "symbolic messages"?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/26/07
Americans Killed: 3067
Americans Wounded: 23,114
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
"We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks
.......................................................


Latest Confirmed Casualties


*Cpl. Darrel J. Morris, 21, of Spokane, Wash.(60th Washingtonian), died Jan. 21 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Emilian D. Sanchez, 20, of Santa Ana Pueblo, N.M., died Jan. 21 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Sgt. Jonathan P. C. Kingman, 21, of Nankin, OH died Jan. 20 near Baji, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Michael J. Wiggins, 26, of Cleveland, OH died Jan. 23 in Balad, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Andrew G. Matus, 19, of Chetek, Wis. died Jan. 21 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Sgt. Gary S. Johnston, 21, of Windthorst, TX died Jan. 23 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Sgt. Michael M. Kashkoush, 24, of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, died Jan. 23 in Al Anbar
province, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Jamie D. Wilson, 34, of San Diego, Calif., died Jan. 22 in Fallujah, Iraq.

*Spc. Brandon L. Stout, 23, of Grand Rapids, Mich., died Jan. 22 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Spc. Nicholas P. Brown, 24, of Huber Heights, Ohio, died Jan. 22 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Hector Leija, 27, of Houston, Texas, died Jan. 24 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. 1st Class Keith A. Callahan, 31, of McClure, Pa., died Jan. 24 south of
Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Eli Lilly Buys Cialis to Screw ICOS Employees

From The Everett Herald comes the news that the shareholders of Snohomish County based ICOS Corp. have approved a buyout by mammoth drug company, Ely Lily and Co.

The financial details are in the article but the real "money quotes" are here (Emphasis TLS):

"Paul Clark, ICOS chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement released after today’s shareholders meeting in Bothell.

"The value our employees have created is the result of years of innovation and hard work to build a highly skilled organization that has produced a best-in-class product with nearly $1 billion in sales, and achieved profitability in an industry where few companies ever do.""

"The acquisition is expected to be complete on Monday. Within the next two weeks, 400 of ICOS’ workers will be laid off, with the rest being let go in the coming months."

I guess they just couldn't keep it up.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News - Special Notice

The names of the American service members who died when the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter they were in went down over Baghdad, Iraq on Jan. 20th were released today by the Department of Defense:


*Col. Brian D. Allgood, 46, of OK

*Staff Sgt. Darryl D. Booker, 37, of Midlothian, VA

*Sgt. 1st Class John G. Brown, 43, of Little Rock, AR.

*Lt. Col. David C. Canegata, 50, of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands

*Command Sgt. Maj. Marilyn L. Gabbard, 46, of Polk City, IW

*Command Sgt. Maj. Roger W. Haller, 49, of Davidsonville, MD

*Col. Paul M. Kelly, 45, of Stafford, VA

*Staff Sgt. Floyd E. Lake, 43, of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

*Cpl. Victor M. Langarica, 29, of Decatur, GA

*Capt. Sean E. Lyerly, 31, of Pflugerville, TX

*Maj. Michael V. Taylor, 40, of North Little Rock, AK

*1st Sgt. William T. Warren, 48, of North Little Rock, AK

The cause of the crash is under investigation but eyewitnesses suggest the chopper was brought down by a shoulder launched missile.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/24/07
Americans Killed: 3062
Americans Wounded: 22,951
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
"We don't do body counts." General Tommy Franks
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Petty Officer 2nd Class Joseph D. Alomar, 22, of Brooklyn, N.Y died Jan. 17, 2007, at Camp Bucca, Iraq.

*Spc. William J. Rechenmacher, 24, of Jacksonville, Fla., died Jan. 18 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Spc. Jason J. Corbett, 23, of Casper, Wyo., died Jan. 15 in Karmah, Iraq.

*Sgt. 1st Class Russell P. Borea, 38, of El Paso, Texas, died on Jan. 19 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer A. Valdivia, 27, of Cambridge, IL died on Jan. 16 in Bahrain.

*Cpl. Jacob H. Neal, 23, of San Marcos, TX died Jan. 19 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Luis J. Castillo, 20, of Lawton, Mich., died Jan. 20 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Pfc. Allen B. Jaynes, 21, of Henderson, Texas, died Jan. 20 in Iraq.

*Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, Calif., died Jan. 20 in Karbala, Iraq.

*Pfc. Ryan J. Hill, 20, of Keizer, Ore., died January 20 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Sean P. Fennerty, 25, of Corvallis, OR died Jan 20 in Karma, Iraq.

*Sgt. Phillip D. McNeill, 22, of Sunrise, FL died Jan 20 in Karma, Iraq.

*Spc. Jeffrey D. Bisson, 22, of Vista, CA died Jan 20 in Karma, Iraq.

*Spc. Toby R. Olsen, 28, of Manchester, NH died Jan 20 in Karma, Iraq.

*1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Neb. died Jan 20 in Karbala, Iraq.

*Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, La. died Jan 20 in Karbala, Iraq.

*Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, NY died Jan 20 in Karbala, Iraq.

*Pvt. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, AL died Jan 20 in Karbala, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

WA Legislature Might Say No to Iraq Escalation

Just caught This from David Postman.

HJM 4004

SJM 8003

Special thanks to Snohomish County's Hans Dunshee, Mike Sells, Mark Ericks, Ruth Kagi, and Paul Shin (The list of co-sponsors appears to still have time for additions)

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

"Bush-Speak" and the Pending War in Iran

“Clear Skies”, “Healthy Forests”, “USA Patriot Act”, such is the backward speak of the Bush Administration. As I posted here, they have even begun to re-draw world maps. In the latest set of talking points to emphasize their version of the truth in the Middle East, it should come as no surprise that they are painting Iran as the aggressor in that region. This comes from an Associated Press story as presented by MSNBC:

” DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington’s way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.” ““The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” (U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, Nicholas) Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.”(Emphasis TLS)

So let’s see if we have this right. In March of 2003, the United States, at the direction of George W. Bush and with the overt approval of the US Congress, initiated a war of aggression against the sovereign country of Iraq. In May of that year, after declaring the end of “major combat”, the United States became an occupying force in that Muslim country in the center of the Middle East. Because there was no true plan for leaving that country (in fact Bush has recently announced a plan to increase the number of American forces in Iraq), a power vacuum was created and a civil war between the various religious sects has festered to the point that over 1,000 Iraqis are being killed each month. Indeed some estimates suggest that over 600,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq. Yet, today the Bush Administration labels Iran the aggressor with intentions to “dominate the region.”

And on what does the Bush Administration base it claims about Iran? It seems the United States is concerned about Iran’s plans to move toward nuclear energy and start a uranium enrichment program. In fact, the Bush Administration is convinced the Iran wants a nuclear bomb. Again, I say let’s see if we have this right.

In what must be the world’s worst kept secret, the country of Israel, a staunch ally of the United States and protagonist of Iran, was the first country in the Middle East to have a nuclear bomb. Indeed, Iraq was certainly in the beginning stages of developing a nuclear weapon right up to the point of the Gulf War in 1991. We know this because the United States almost certainly provided some of the technical capability for this program during the time we were supporting Iraq in its war with Iran during the late seventies and eighties. Then, of course, there are India and Pakistan; both countries with ongoing nuclear programs that are not only accepted by the United States but actually equipped by us to help further those programs. This in spite of the fact that India has yet to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Pakistan, a country known to have sold nuclear plans and materials to countries throughout the Middle East, is certainly the current base of operations for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. So while the Bush Administration is happy to openly support and supply the known nuclear weapons programs of regional neighbors, we draw the line with Iran – because?? Maybe we believe that there isn't room for more than one "aggressor" in the region? Don’t get me wrong. I am not supportive of any proliferation of nuclear weaponry. However, diplomacy through hypocrisy cannot produce any result other than hostility; which brings us back to the crux of the argument.

Peace through War – the Bush Doctrine.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Washblog Coverage of the Citizen's Hearing on Iraq

Because they were there and because they are some of the best writers I know but mostly because you NEED to know this:

Live blogging from the Citizen's Hearing on Iraq
By noemie maxwell

(Photo: Jason Osgood)

An Interview with Darrell Anderson, Iraq Vet Against the War
By Pen

Chanan Juarez-Diaz (left) & Darrell Anderson (right)
(Photo: Arthur Ruger)

We Were There: Thoughts on getting away with talking mean about the government
By Arthur Ruger
(Photo: Arthur Ruger)

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/20/07
Americans Killed: 3028
Americans Wounded: 22,951
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
"We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Maj. Michael L. Mundell, 47, of Brandenburg, Ky., died Jan. 5 in Fallujah, Iraq.

*Pfc. Ryan R. Berg, 19, of Sabine Pass, Texas, died Jan. 9 in Baqubah, Iraq.

*Cpl. Stephen J. Raderstorf, 21, of Peoria, Ariz., died Jan. 7 in Balad, Iraq.

*Spc. James D. Riekena, 22, of Redmond, WA (59th Washingtonian), died Jan. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Paul T. Sanchez, 32, of Irving, Texas, died Jan. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily, 23, of Irvine, CA died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, 22, of Prairie Village, KS died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Sgt. John E. Cooper, 29, of Ewing, KY died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Spc. Matthew T. Grimm, 21, of Wisconsin Rapids, WI died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Sgt. Gregory A. Wright, 28, of Boston, Mass. died Jan. 13 in Muqdadiyah, Iraq.

*Spc. Collin R. Schockmel, 19, of Richwood, TX died Jan. 16 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

A Possible Shift in Trade Policy?

Thanks again to Sirota who points us to this article in the Miami Herald about the possibility of a shift in trade language based upon the perception of a greater challenge to so-called Free Trade from the incoming Democratic majority in Congress.

The story from Miami Herald reporter, Pablo Bachlelt, begins, ”Faced with the inevitability of a trade-skeptic Democratic-controlled Congress, the Bush administration has told Peru and Colombia that their free-trade agreements with the United States will need ''substantive adjustments'' to secure Congressional approval.
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John K. Veroneau told reporters Wednesday that the concessions were needed to assuage Democratic objections over labor rights.” However the article goes on to explain that any changes to the agreements with Peru and Columbia would most likely need to come on the form of “side agreements” as the language for the trade agreements has already been agreed upon and would be nearly impossible to re-open for such changes.

Interestingly, this story comes to us just a day after Sirota posted a letter from 39 new Democratic members of the House to Charles Rangle, the new chair of the Ways and Means Committee stating their commitment to working for a better trade policy than “Free Trade.” They write, in part:

”It is very important that we not only reverse the troubling results of the Administration’s trade agreements and trade policies, but also that we are able to deliver on the promise we made to our constituents to move our nation on a new and improved direction on trade. We hope you would consider ongoing opportunities to discuss your views on trade in the 110th Congress, with those of us who have advocated for meaningful changes in trade policymaking who do not have the honor of serving on your committee.”

I say that this is interesting because, while the Whitehouse may be sensing a shift in Congress, we can’t be sure that the Democratic “leadership” will be willing to make these changes as, thus far the only voices to be heard on trade are those who brought us this policy to begin with. And while there may be 39 new House members who are ready to change course on trade, there are still folks like my own Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA2) and Senators Murray and Cantwell who, except for Larsen’s rare “no” vote on CAFTA, haven’t met a “Free Trade” bill they haven’t liked. Hopefully, with the influx of new voices in the Congress, there is a chance that, even if we can’t change these votes, we may be able to marginalize them enough to achieve real change.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Help Wanted: Translator for Bush Administration

Apparently George W. Bush is determined to spill more American blood onto Iraqi sand regardless of the actual requests from the Iraq government. In an interview that comes days after Bush has insisted on sending 21,500 more Americans into the growing civil war in Iraq, that country’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said, ”If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down. That's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping them and arming them.”

During the hour long interview, al-Maliki took great pains to assert the independence and sovereignty of Iraq and took exception to remarks from Condi Rice that the al-Maliki government was on “borrowed time.” From the story in the Washington Post, ”The prime minister said statements such as Rice's "give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration," Maliki said. "But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government."”

What seems to be the disconnect between the Bush administration and al-Maliki? While the Bush administration is, on the one hand, telling the American people that ‘we stand shoulder to shoulder with the government of Iraq and are working tirelessly to support our newest ally in the war on terror’ according to the story in the Post, ”Bush administration officials have long expressed concern in private about delivering military equipment to Iraq because of uncertainty that it would be kept out of the hands of militiamen, common criminals and insurgents.” So, if Bush doesn’t trust the Iraq government he helped to install, who is he sending our troops to die for?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

AG of Torture Declares Judges "Inferior"

In a story from the Associated Press, as presented by MSNBC.com, "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases."

Also, according to a copy of Gonzales' prepared text which was acquired by the Associated Press, Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court Justice himself, will outline certain qualities the Bush Administration looks for in judges. "“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”" (Emphasis TLS)

The fact that this Attorney General and this administration have probably spent more time in front of an appeals court than any before them - defending themselves over such things as illegal wiretapping and illegal detentions of US citizens - might explain why they are so quick to overlook the co-equal nature of the judiciary as set out by the US Constitution. But, then again, this crowd has never let the constitution get in their way before.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Iranq?

Iranq. George W. Bush is creating a new country in the Middle East. While the American people have been focused on the ongoing occupation of Iraq, Bush and his cronies have been steadily (and quite craftily) drawing new lines on the map of the area in order to change the narrative from failure in Iraq to the “beginning of the struggle to contain the expansion of Iran.” Just as with his success in creating the illusion of the link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9-11, Bush is hoping to link Iraq and Iran into one country – Iranq.

We all know the litany of (false) reasons for the invasion of Iraq; WMD, Al Qaida, liberate the people, protect the oil revenues. And, yes, Bush has linked Iran and Iraq together before. But that link, as charter members of the “Axis of Evil” (which includes North Korea) was much looser and much more symbolic. However, with the increase in violence in Iraq brought about by the civil war – a direct result of our invasion and creation of a power vacuum – Bush and Company realized that they were going to need a new narrative for their continuing plan to colonize that country. Knowing that, due to the hostage crisis in 1979, the American people already harbor bad feelings toward Iran, they are hoping it won’t be a difficult task to convince them that, in fact, it is our presence in Iraq that is keeping Iran from invading and setting up a new Iranian satellite as part of their ultimate goal to become the primary power in the Middle East.

With the recent mid-term elections behind us and with polling that indicates the American people are no longer accepting the original Bush arguments for the invasion and occupation, there is much talk (hope?) about the new Congress forcing a withdrawal of American troops from the center of the Iraqi civil war. Some have suggested that we withdraw to the borders to become, if you will, a security ring so that the Iraqis may fight it out amongst themselves without fear of outside interference. Others have suggested that we simply come home having accomplished all of the things listed above. However, if you listen to the “debate” that is taking place today, the “frame” in which all discussion is taking place centers on Iranq. The most heard phrase coming out of Washington DC is, “The risk of defeat would be catastrophic.” And just what is that risk (as if there is any such thing as victory)? There is the ongoing and nebulous “the terrorists win” prattle of course; but more and more it is “the expansion of Iran”. That’s right; George Bush is now deliberately linking our presence in Iraq to the threat of Iranian expansion in the Middle East. Take this from Bush’s recent “escalation speech”, “"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.” “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.” Perhaps not so coincidently, within days of those words, US forces in Iraq raided the Iranian consulate there and are still holding five “suspects.” We may never know what, if anything was retrieved in that raid but it is enough to know that we must have had reason to be worried. Add to that the fact that Bush has deployed yet another aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf just to “keep Iran in check.” In recent days on Capitol Hill, witness after witness as well as law makers of both parties have expressed concerns over Iran’s intentions “IF” we leave Iraq.

So before you get too excited about the prospect of a new Democratic majority putting an end to the debacle in Iraq, you might want to drop them a line to remind them that there is no such place as Iranq.

[UPDATE - 01/17/07]
"“We do have vital national security interests in Iraq,” declared (Hillary) Clinton. “Al Anbar province is the staging ground for attacks by the Sunni insurgency and al Qaida in Iraq. Both are directed at us. We have vital national security interests with respect to what Iran is doing in crossing the border. We have a commitment to the future and the safety of the Kurdish people. There’s a lot that we still have as part of our ongoing obligations that are in Americans interests, as well as the interest of the people of Iraq.”

She also said, “I’m not going to support a specific deadline” for getting U.S. forces out of Iraq, but she does support phased withdrawal at some point in the future."

Might be too late for Senator Clinton.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Constitutional Dilema?

I never get tired of reviewing the Constitution of the United States. It is obvious to me that this document was written by men who were steadfast in their resolve to throw off the bonds of imperial power. For instance, the first three articles list the duties of the separate branches of government and it is no coincidence that they begin with the Legislative Branch. I bring this up because of the current “debate” over George W. Bush’s plan to escalate the numbers of American forces in Iraq. Just to review (with certain emphasis provided):

Article I – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 (of 10)

Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13:

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Article II – The Executive Branch

Section 2 (of 4)

Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

It is against this backdrop that I take note of the following from an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” and commented on by MSNBC: “Bush says opposition won’t shift his Iraq policy“

” WASHINGTON - Digging in for confrontation, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

“I fully understand they could try to stop me,” Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. “But I’ve made my decision, and we’re going forward.””

I might suggest that Mr. Bush doesn’t “fully understand” as much as he believes. As a matter of fact, there is this:

” Yet when asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said “Not at all.”
“We liberated that country from a tyrant,” Bush said. “I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude.”

Oh yes; and there is this:

Article I; Section 2; Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I; Section 3; Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article II; Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Some have suggested an impending Constitutional confrontation. I am hoping that someone from this congress remembers this famous quote from George W. Bush, "Bring it On!"

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Schual-Berke Bill for Clean Elections

Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D WA-33) has fulfilled a promise to introduce legislation to allow public financing of judicial campaign at the state level. HB1186, introduced to the House by Rep. Schual-Berke will require candidates for State Appellate court and State Supreme Court who voluntarily opt in for public financing to meet a threshold of voter support and sign an affidavit that they will not accept outside financing or spend more than a token amount of their own money to campaign for those offices. In return, they will receive public funds for both the primary and general elections. Original co-sponsors of the bill are, Sam Hunt (D WA-22), Jeannie Darneille (D WA-27), Mark Miloscia (D WA-30), Maralyn Chase (D WA-32), Ruth Kagi (D WA-32), Joe McDermott (D WA-34), Eileen Cody (D WA-34), Helen Sommers (D WA-36), Mary Lou Dickerson (D WA-36), Eric Pettigrew (D WA-37), and Hans Dunshee (D WA-44).

The introduction of the bill comes within a week of a series of Clean Elections forums conducted by Washington Public Campaigns (WPC) that traveled down the I-5 corridor from Everett to Olympia and featured legislators from Maine and Arizona and Washington as well as noted author and activist David Sirota at Seattle’s Town Hall on January 5th. In addition to Schual-Berke’s bill, other bills are expected to be introduced shortly that will address public financing of local/regional campaigns and state-wide and legislative races.

If you have not already called or emailed your particular legislator with regard to Clean Elections, please check out the list of co-sponsors to see if your is listed. If so, please thank them. If not, please ask them to support this step in reclaiming our democracy.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Here we go again....

County government is, to many, a bit of a mystery. Everyone knows it is there but few could tell you much about it or what it does. While most political folks are focused on the activities of the state legislature, congress, and our president, local government just sort of chugs along with little attention. This is despite the fact that it is local government that determines how our local communities work and grow - for better or for worse. One of the key functions of county and city government is regulating land use.

One of my top priorities as a County Council member is to ensure the preservation and enhancement of agriculture in the County. I have consistently opposed attempts to whittle away at farm land for such ill conceived projects as car dealerships and shopping centers. It is absolutely essential that we reserve our existing prime agricultural lands for farming, natural resource protection, and other rural uses. I would, in fact, like to bring upland lands suitable for agriculture back in to ag designation. Thousands of acres of prime farm land were rezoned residential back in 1995. This was a mistake and I hope to correct it in the future.

Unfortunately on Wednesday Councilmen Nelson, Koster and Sievers voted to ignore the Growth Management Hearings Board and state law. This was despite requests from the land owner, the City of Arlington, Cascade Land Conservancy, and Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) to consider an amicable settlement proposal.


A bit of history...

In 2005, the County Council voted to expand the Arlington urban growth area (UGA) to include 5 acres of the Foster dairy. This was just one of a long string of attempts by the Council over the years to turn farm land into commercial enterprises - the most notorious of these is the ongoing push to turn farm land into a new car lot for auto dealer Dwayne Lane. Time and time again, the County has been told by the Hearings Board and the courts that this is illegal. The Growth Management Act requires farm land to be designated and then protected. Paving over farm land for a car dealership is not protecting it. Futurewise challenged the 2005 action to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.

The Hearings Board found in September that the County was out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and ordered it to return the farm land to rural status. The County was given until January 18th, 2007 to comply with this order. The Council's action on Wednesday (1/10/07) was in direct violation of this order - a virtual one finger salute to the Hearings Board and the law.

The race is on. Futurewise has vowed to fight the action, however the State Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County is reportedly on a fast track to OK the annexation, rendering the conversion of the farm land to urban designation permanent.

Once more, Snohomish County is arrogantly headed in the wrong direction.

Surge Protection

Surge Protectors

or

Surge Protectors?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/11/07
Americans Killed: 3017 (Corrected 1/13 by DoD)
Americans Wounded: 22,834
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 58,797
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 150,000
Iraqi Health Ministry
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties


*Pvt. David E. Dietrich, 21, of Marysville, Pa., died Dec. 29 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.

*Sgt. Thomas E. Vandling Jr., 26, of Pittsburgh, Pa., died Jan. 1 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Charles D. Allen, 28, of Wasilla, Alaska, died Jan. 4 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Tech. Sgt. Timothy R. Weiner, 35, of Tamarac, Fla. died Jan. 7 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Senior Airman Elizabeth A. Loncki, 23, of New Castle, Del. died Jan. 7 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Senior Airman Daniel B. Miller Jr., 24, Galesburg, Ill. died Jan. 7 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Cpl. Jeremiah J. Johnson, 23, of Vancouver, WA (58th Washingtonian), died Jan. 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered Dec. 26 in Baghdad.

* Sgt. Aron C. Blum, 22, of Tucson, Ariz., died Dec. 28 at Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA after being evacuated from Al Anbar province, Iraq, on Dec. 8.

*Sgt. James M. Wosika Jr., 24, of St. Paul, Minn., died Jan. 9 in Fallujah, Iraq.

*Spc. Eric T. Caldwell, 22, of Salisbury, Md., died Jan 7 outside Baghdad, Iraq.

*Spc. Raymond N. Mitchell, III, 21, of West Memphis, Ark., died Jan 6 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of Cathedral City, CA, died Jan. 9 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Symbolism

I usually wake up and start my day reading my local newspapers before I start looking at the national publications. This isn’t always in the right order to produce a day of good feelings. Take today for example. I was pleased to read the following from the Seattle Times’ David Postman

”Congressman Jay Inslee is clear he wants to stop funding for the President's plan. He spoke on the House floor earlier this morning to say Congress needs to "stop George Bush's disastrous policy in Iraq."

(Inslee)
"The President has refused to listen to the bipartisan panel calling for a chance in Iraq. He has refused to listen to the American people. But he cannot refuse to listen to a Congress that fulfills its obligation under the Constitution to exercise the power of the purse to stop this misguided escalation.
"The U.S. House should vote in clear and no uncertain terms to fund the troops that are there and to cut off funding for any escalation. It is our Constitutional obligation. It is a commonsense policy to insist on Iraqis standing up. That is the direction of change we need in this country."”

This is exactly what I want to hear from the new Democratic majority. But wait! What is this from the New York Times?

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
Published: January 10, 2007

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.”(Emphasis TLS)

Memo to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi:

Try this for symbolism:

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Clean Elections Coast to Coast?

As has been reported Here and Here Clean elections are being talked about in Washington State. Apparently they will also be discussed in the other Washington this year.

According to a post over at TPM Muckraker.com, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the US Senate, has indicated that he will be bringing a bill to floor of that body that will address Public Financing of Federal Campaigns. The author of the TPM piece, Paul Kiel, writes:

"On the Senate floor today, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), while speaking about the Dems' ethics package, said that the next logical step is public financing, and that he would be introducing such a bill in a matter of weeks. (We're still trying to get a record of Durbin's exact remarks.)"

While it is far too early to expect anything this "radical" out of this congress (check out This and This), the fact that someone in Durbin's position is willing to even bring it up gives us hope that we can make real progress at the state level.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Rattling the Keys to the Castle

Now I kinda like Bill Clinton. I mean, as a Democrat, I was certainly happy to see him replace that “thousand points of light” guy. However, I have long maintained that Clinton’s greatest appeal was his charisma and charm and not so much his approach to public policy. From his initial back peddling on gay rights with the ridicules “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy to the co-opting of the Republican agenda against “welfare queens”, he was determined to prove he could straddle that white line without getting hit by the moving traffic in either lane. Even the credit that he gets for the booming economy which led to the great budget surplus was probably more attributable to the Internet boom of the 90s than to any fiscal policy instituted by his administration. Of all the mis-guided Clinton policy initiatives however, NAFTA and the birth of “Free” Trade has to sit head and shoulders above the rest. By almost every measure, it was this shift on trade policy that was the single biggest contributor to the loss of both houses of congress (and, if you believe W actually won Florida, the Whitehouse) by the Democrats beginning with the mid-term elections of 1994. All the talk about the “Gingrich (Contract With America) Revolution” aside, it was this abandonment of principles by the Democrats on the issue of protecting American jobs and, therefore, Labor that led to a massive decline in support of the “NAFTA Democrats” in that election.

So what does that have to do with the current situation? As I posted yesterday, there still seems to linger with some Democrats in Congress the notion that we should continue down this path of selling out the American worker. While you might think that Senator Baucus (D-MT) might be preaching to an empty church on the subject of “Fast Tracking”, enter none other than Bill Clinton himself. In catching up on my blog reading, I see this from David Postman at the Seattle Times:

”Senate Democrats get Clinton (Bill) pep talk
Posted by David Postman at 05:59 PM

Former President Bill Clinton urged Senate Democrats today not to give up on globalization and not to let growing opposition to free trade fracture the party.”

Again, I like Bill but I think he would do us all a favor if he would stick to PR work and stay away from the policy details. From Postman:

” Much has been made of shifts in the House makeup that augur changes in trade policies: DeLay is gone, Republicans are out of power and more than two dozen new fair-trade Democrats are ready to take the place of free-trade Republicans. But the changes in the Senate are just as sweeping, and perhaps more significant. Of the six Republican incumbents who lost to Democrats on November 7, five were steady free-trade voters. All were replaced by lawmakers — Brown in Ohio, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jim Webb in Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island — who argued that past trade agreements have failed to deliver on the promise of more prosperity for U.S. workers and farmers. In addition, the seat held by Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords, who voted for CAFTA and other trade deals, was taken by Bernie Sanders, who for more than a decade has been one of the steadiest and savviest critics of the free-trade agenda.”

The new Democratic majority would be well served to give Bill his due as a respected former president and figurehead for the party. However they would do themselves a big favor by listening to the people on matters of policy and refer to the paragraph above when in doubt on the matter of trade.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

A Greeting for a New Year

Happy New Year! It’s official. Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the US House and Harry Reid is the new Majority Leader in the US Senate and they are both Democrats. Time for a huge sigh of relief! - - - Ok, back to work!

It would be so easy to sit back and say that the hard work has been accomplished and we can simply let the new Democratic majority do their job. The problem with that position is that the last time we simply left things up to the Democratic majority and disengaged from the process, they lost the keys to the castle. Simply put, electing them is the easy part; helping them govern will take some effort.

Now, obviously, this message isn’t for everyone. Those who believe the “job” is simply about winning elections might as well stop reading now. The people I am talking to are those who believe we elect folks to represent a set of values and positions that will make our country better for the majority of its citizens. Over the past twelve years that the other side has controlled the congress, many Democrats have stopped fighting hard for the average working American, using the excuse, “I’m in the minority. I am doing the best I can under that circumstance.” Well they don’t have that excuse to wave around any longer.

On the issue of trade, for example, Democrats (and the majority of Americans) believe that trade is an important part of international diplomacy and integral to the economy. However, trade deals that do not come with safeguards for American workers or environmental protections or deals that reward corporations that off shore production to evade taxes do not represent the values of working Americans or a Progressive Democratic Party. Democrats since 1994 have simply stopped fighting the shift to so-called Free Trade by using the excuse of being in the minority. Now it would be nice to think that we could simply rely on the fact that Democrats are in the majority to start turning that trend around. Don’t be too quick to buy that. From David Sirota’s Blog:

"Baucus Bows to Bush “Free” Trade Agenda On First Day of New Congress?
On the first day of the new Congress after Democrats took the majority thanks to many of its winning candidates running explicitly against "free" trade, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the reauthorization of legislation to allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals with no labor, human rights or environmental standards. Baucus says he supports this “fast track” authority being “improved as it is renewed, with better trade enforcement capability and better environmental and labor provisions.” But he doesn’t explain how giving Bush the authority to negotiate trade deals with no input from Congress would somehow obligate Bush to include labor/human rights/environmental provisions in those trade deals. If someone knows of an “improved” fast track proposal that somehow obligates Bush to adhere to a fair trade agenda while cutting out Congress from holding his feet to the fire, please explain in the comments section. Otherwise, we should assume this is a smokescreen much like the highly-touted NAFTA side agreements that were shown to be a sham before the ink on that deal dried.” As of this writing I have still not seen any explanation as to what requires Bush to change his stripes.

On the issue of Iraq, it was reassuring to read that Reid and Pelosi have sent a letter to Bush rejecting the ridicules notion of a “troop surge” to that country. However, there will soon be a request for some $100 BILLION to continue funding who knows what in Iraq. I say, “who knows what” because, for the entire time Bush and the republican congress have had us occupying that country, there has been no meaningful oversight by anyone inside the government. Given that the American people have expressed their views in the last election about the direction they want to see in Iraq, $100 BILLION seems pretty high for a re-deployment. In other words, while it is never the right thing to fail to provide for the safety and welfare of our troops, the new Democratic majority has every obligation to scrutinize every funding request to ensure that monies are not being set aside for troop build-ups or “permanent military infrastructure” of any kind. It’s time to pull in the purse strings in a way that leads to bringing our troops home sooner rather than later.

In the areas of energy and the environment and civil liberties and so many others, the new Democratic majority will have the opportunity to put this country back on the right track. I am concerned however that, due to the possibility of a veto or, worse, the threat of a large special interest to withhold re-election funding, some members of this new majority may falter. Therefore we must remain vigilant and active in “helping” our elected representatives remain in touch with their constituents. Keep that contact information on the bulletin board by the phone.

While we have gained a foothold, there is still a mountain to climb.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/04/07
Americans Killed: 3005
Americans Wounded: 22,565
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 58,148
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 150,000
Iraqi Health Ministry
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 655,000
http://www.thelancet.com/
"We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas, died Dec. 28 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Edward W. Shaffer, 23, of Mont Alto, Pa., died Dec. 27 at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, of injuries sustained on Nov. 13 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.

*Sgt. Christopher P. Messer, 28, of Petersburg, FL died Dec. 27 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Pfc. Nathaniel A. Given, 21, of Dickinson, TX died Dec. 27 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Lawrence J. Carter, 25, of Rancho Cucamonga, CA died Dec. 29 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Pfc. William R. Newgard, 20, of Arlington Heights, IL died Dec. 29 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Spc. Luis G. Ayala, 21, of South Gate, Calif., died Dec. 28 in Taji, Iraq.

*Pfc. Alan R. Blohm, 21, of Kenai, Alaska, died Dec. 31 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Cpl. Jonathan E. Schiller, 20, of Ottumwa, Iowa. died Dec. 31 in Baqubah, Iraq.

*Spc. Richard A. Smith, 20, of Grand Prairie, TX died Dec. 31 in Baqubah, Iraq.

*Sgt. John M. Sullivan, 22, of Hixon, Tenn., died Dec. 30 in Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue