Obama declares "combat mission" over in Iraq

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 07:31:36 AM CDT

Several commentators have noted that Obama did not declare victory in the speech, but he certainly put a positive spin on our foreign adventures. The gist was that he's kept his promise to end the war, we've accomplished the goals he set when he became president, and ceasing combat in Iraq will allow us to pivot to a more effective fight against terrorism in Afghanistan as well as a more. Obama highlighted the withdrawal of nearly 100,000 troops and the transfer of responsibility to Iraqi authorities. However, our"transitional force in Iraq is about 50,000 troops now, and even at the end of 2011 we could have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the country. Tehcnically, these are "advise and assist" brigades rather than combat brigades, but our soldiers will still be targets, and some will continue to die under hostile fire.

In the least convincing part of his speech, Obama hailed "credible elections" leading to "a caretaker administration" as Iraqis form a government. The lack of a functioning Iraqi government nearly six months after those elections doesn't evoke optimism about future political stability.

Three years ago, candidate Obama bombarded Iowa Democrats with messages about how he spoke out against the war in Iraq. Last night, he only mentioned his previous opposition to the war in passing, and he didn't suggest the war was a mistake. His kind words about George W. Bush glossed over the lies that helped lead the country to war as well as the mismanagement that undermined our national security and kept us bogged down in Iraq for so many years.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest; it's in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home.

We've persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people, a belief that, out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibilities. Now it's time to turn the page.

As we do, I'm mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it's time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.

As I've said, there were patriots who supported this war and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women and our hopes for Iraqis' future.

Obama then pivoted to defending the importance of our mission in Afghanistan. He claimed that drawing down from Iraq will give us "the resources necessary to go on offense" against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He affirmed that troop reductions will begin in the summer of 2011, with the pace "determined by conditions on the ground." Juan Cole remarked, "Presumably the language about the Afghan struggle against al-Qaeda was intended to please hawks, while the pledge to begin withdrawing next year was for the purpose of reassuring liberals. It is not clear, however, that practical success in Afghanistan can be achieved through this sort of rhetorical compromise." I still think the escalation of our war in Afghanistan will turn out to be one of Obama's biggest mistakes. U.S. and coalition military fatalities in Afghanistan have sharply increased since Obama took office. We have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, three times as many as when Obama became president. The drawdown is scheduled to begin in July 2011, but I wouldn't bet on that date sticking, judging from recent comments by General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Toward the end of last night's speech, Obama suggested that ending the combat mission in Iraq will allow the U.S. to invest more in our own economy, creating jobs. I'll believe that when I see it. Obama's escalation in Afghanistan will cost an exorbitant amount during the next few years. For the last decade, Congress has always been willing to sign blank checks for war, but the deficit hawks pop up to express concern about excessive domestic spending. If Republicans retake one or both chambers of Congress, you can forget about new economic stimulus measures. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is also a non-starter, judging from how the Senate energy bill is shaping up. More broadly, I don't think Obama acknowledges how precarious our economic situation is now. His August 30 public comments on the economy were narrowly focused on extending small business tax credits, which Senate Republicans have been blocking. It will take a lot more than that to produce job growth again.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The estimated audience for Obama's address was 29 million viewers.

Memorial Day weekend open thread: Guns, not butter edition

by: desmoinesdem

Sun May 30, 2010 at 18:53:32 PM CDT

Every so often I read the I Got The News Today profiles of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to an old Jewish teaching, saving one life is equivalent to saving the whole world. The IGTNT diaries, like "Six More Lost to All Who Loved Them," are a crushing reminder that the death of one person is like the death of the whole world to the people left behind.

The IGTNT series will likely continue for many more years. The number of Americans killed in Afghanistan recently passed 1,000, and we are preparing to send an additional 30,000 troops there. Although we have fewer troops in Iraq now than we did for most of the past seven years, we have more troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined now than we did when Obama became president.  

The price of these wars is also enormous in monetary terms. On May 30 the estimated cost of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded $1 trillion. We could have done lots of things with that kind of money. On May 27 the U.S. Senate passed yet another war supplemental funding bill, this time for $58.8 billion. On May 28 the House passed the $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill for 2011 (roll call here). Iowa's House members split on party lines, with Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) supporting them and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voting no.

Meanwhile, Congress adjourned for the Memorial Day weekend without extending unemployment benefits or passing another jobs bill. This economic relief bill had already been watered down because of "concerns" about deficit spending. You'll notice few members of Congress are concerned about deficit spending to fund our endless war machine.

For many, Memorial Day is a time to remember lost loved ones, regardless of whether they served in the military. Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman's mother recently died, and he wrote this tribute to her.

For some people, Memorial Day is first and foremost the unofficial beginning of summer. Feel free to share any fun plans or picnic recipes in the comments. We've been invited to a potluck tomorrow, and I haven't decided whether to make my favorite chick pea dish (from Madhur Jaffrey's Indian Cooking), a North African potato salad with olive oil and spices, or a pasta salad with a Chinese-style peanut butter sauce. I like to bring vegan dishes to potlucks so I don't worry if they sit outside for a few hours. Also, the party I'm attending tomorrow may include some vegetarians and people who keep kosher (they don't mix meat with dairy in the same meal).

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

UPDATE: Graphs showing number of days in Iraq and number of U.S. deaths in Iraq before and after President George W. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished."

Culver campaign news roundup (updated)

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 11:37:39 AM CST

Links and analysis are after the jump.  

Year in review: national politics in 2009 (part 1)

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 07:52:32 AM CST

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn't have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can't say I wasn't warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year's political events are welcome in this thread.

A question for war veterans

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 16:00:00 PM CST

My friend would appreciate getting mail regularly when he's in Iraq, so I plan to write frequently. My question for veterans is, what kind of letters did you like getting? Were there some letters that brought you down instead of giving you a boost? Normally, I would try to bring a friend up to date on my family and what I'm doing, but I don't know whether hearing about life as usual around here would be depressing for someone stuck in a war zone.

Is it bad to let someone know you are worried about him and praying for his safe return?

Is it ok to mention that you know he must be missing his family terribly (for instance, on his child's birthday or his wedding anniversary)?

Normally this friend and I talk politics, but is it better to avoid that subject?

If you have advice for me but don't feel comfortable posting a comment in this thread, feel free to e-mail me: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:38:04 AM CDT

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Jerome Armstrong notes that only two other sitting U.S. presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

I agree that Obama has outlined a compelling vision of international relations, but I find it strange that the committee made this award before waiting to see whether Obama escalates the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan or keeps his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. Obama hasn't proposed reductions in the U.S. defense budget yet either (just a smaller increase than what the military requested).

I'm encouraged that Obama is open to cutting our nuclear arsenal. We have way more warheads than we need for deterrence, and they are expensive to maintain. But for all of Obama's good intentions here, he hasn't struck an agreement with Russia yet.

According to MSNBC, even the White House was surprised by this award.

Maybe John Deeth is right that the Nobel committee basically gave this prize to Obama for not being George W. Bush.

Post any thoughts about this or previous Nobel Peace Prizes in this thread. Most ridiculous choice ever? For my money, Henry Kissinger.

Mr. desmoinesdem thinks it's a shame that Czech dissident-turned-president Vaclav Havel never did win this award.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports:

In response to questions from reporters in Oslo, who noted that Obama so far has made little concrete progress in achieving his lofty agenda, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said he hoped the prize would add momentum to Obama's efforts. At the same time, Jagland said, "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do."

Jagland specifically cited Obama's speech about Islam in Cairo last spring, as well as efforts to address nuclear proliferation and climate change and use established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue his goals.

Sounds to me like they are hoping this prize will make Obama more likely to follow through on his rhetoric. I've got a friend heading to Iraq soon, and I want the U.S. to stop sending people over there on tours of duty. If winning the Nobel Peace Prize deters Obama from keeping our troops in Iraq for the long term, I'm all for it.

If Obama fails to deliver concrete achievements to back up his vision, however, the Nobel Committee will have discredited itself with what Glenn Greenwald called a "painfully and self-evidently ludicrous" prize.

SECOND UPDATE: Chris Bowers lays out the arguments for and against giving this award to Obama at this time.

Nick Berning disputes the Nobel Committee's contention that the U.S. is now playing "a more constructive role" on combating climate change.

THIRD UPDATE: After the jump I've posted a mass e-mail President Obama sent out today. Excerpt: "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace."

A New Number For a New Era: From 9/11 to 350

by: billyparish

Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 01:38:21 AM CDT

Eight years ago today, two planes flew into the World Trade Center, another crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth landed in a Pennsylvania field. The raw power of that day came to be symbolized by a date composed of three numbers. Three numbers that evoked the shock of being attacked, the horror of the sounds and images on our television sets, and the heroism of so many men and women. Three numbers that framed the events of the last decade and seemed like they would define my generation.

But eight years ago, many in my generation couldn’t vote. We didn’t choose the President, his wars, or his policies. In fact, young Americans have largely rejected the politics of fear and division that dominated those formative years of our political consciousness—voting 2 to 1 in favor of Barack Obama. Today we remember the victims and honor our heroes, but we also have a new President, new crises, and three new numbers: 3-5-0. 350.

Constructive criticism of the "Cash for Clunkers" bill

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:29:15 PM CDT

After the jump I provide some legislative history and constructive criticism of Cash for Clunkers, which Representatives Bruce Braley of Iowa and Betty Sutton of Ohio championed as a reward for consumers who trade in inefficient old cars and trucks for new models.

FBI Infiltrated U of Iowa Anti-War Group

by: noneed4thneed

Sun May 17, 2009 at 10:22:28 AM CDT

Confidential FBI documents obtained by The Des Moines Register show an FBI informant was planted among a group described as an "anarchist collective" that met regularly last year in Iowa City. One of the group's goals was to organize street blockades to disrupt the Republican convention, held Sept. 1-4, 2008, where U.S. Sen. John McCain was nominated for president.

The undercover Minnesota deputy who traveled to Iowa City was from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, which infiltrated a group known as the "RNC Welcoming Committee" that was coordinating convention protest activities in St. Paul.

The undercover officer accompanied two activists from the Twin Cities who attended the University of Iowa in April 2008 for a Midwest campus anti-war conference.

The Iowa City Police Department was not aware that an FBI informant was monitoring local anti-war activists last year, Police Chief Samuel Hargadine said. But he confirmed to the Register that he was notified by Ramsey County authorities last year that they were sending an undercover officer to Iowa City.

It is pretty amazing national security resources would go to monitor a peace group in Iowa.  As one of the people in Iowa said, "There are not a lot of bomb throwers in Iowa City."

I've had it with phony Republican outrage over earmarks

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:07:34 AM CST

Where was the outrage when the Defense Department inspector general determined last year that the DOD can't account for $7.8 billion spent in Iraq?

Why didn't they cheer on President Barack Obama when he moved this week to reduce the billions wasted on no-bid and fraudulent government contracts?

Senator Tom Harkin is under fire for getting so many earmarks in the omnibus bill (though Chuck Grassley also helped secure a substantial number of earmarks). I don't agree with everything Harkin said yesterday about the earmarks, but he was right on target here:

What needs more attention, according to Harkin, are no-bid contracts done by federal agencies.

"I had a hearing a year ago on the Department of Labor and there were -- I forget the exact figure - but several hundred million dollars that had gone out under Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao on no-bid contracts," he said.

When Harkin directed a federal oversight agency to look into the contracts, it was discovered that the contractors had not done what they were hired to do and, according to Harkin, "didn't really do anything. ...

"At least we are transparent," he said. "You can see where it is going. But on a lot of these non-bid contracts that go through the executive branch, no one knows what they are doing. We have no transparency there."

Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in just one department of the executive branch--but conservatives won't get upset about that. Nor will they express outrage upon learning that George Bush's political appointees awarded pricey USDA consulting contracts that did nothing for the Department of Agriculture.

I've got another post coming later about the infamous Harkin earmark for studying pig odor. I want to know where the angry Republicans were last year when progressives and environmentalists were trying to persuade the Iowa legislature not to pass the deeply flawed odor-study bill (see here, here or here).

Open thread on Obama's plans for Iraq

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 11:37:34 AM CST

This week President Obama announced his plans for Iraq. Supposedly "combat operations" will end by August 2010, meaning that the withdrawal will take 18 months rather than 16 months, as Obama promised during the campaign. My concern is not the extra two months, but Obama's decision to leave a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq after August 2010. That sounds like too large a contingent to me and to many Congressional Democrats.

I suppose I should be grateful that Obama isn't following the advice of Colin Kahl, who headed his Iraq working group during the campaign. Kahl has advocated leaving 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq for years (see also here).

Seeing the glass half full, Chris Bowers is pleased that Obama says all U.S. military will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011:

In September of 2007, President Obama refused to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by January 20th, 2013. Now, he has promised to remove them all by December 31st, 2011. That is a positive shift.

This is huge for no residual forces proponents. Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012--the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept.

It is frustrating that it took the Iraqi government, rather than internal anti-war pressure, to finally secure a no residual troop promise from the American government (and they actually succeeded in wringing it out of the Bush administration, something Democrats were entirely unable to achieve). Still, as someone who has opposed the Iraq war for more than six years, and who been has writing about the need for no residual American military forces in Iraq for more than two years, any promise of no residual forces from the American government, backed up by a binding, public document like the Status of Forces Agreement, it an extremely welcome development no matter how it was secured.

The Iraq war is going to end. No residual troops after 2011.

I am concerned that some excuse will be found by then to push back the deadline. (Seeing John McCain and other Republicans praise Obama's plans for Iraq does not reassure me.) I have little confidence that the anti-war movement would raise "holy hell" during a presidential election year if Obama backs off on this promise.

But I am biased on this point, because I've never believed in Obama as a great anti-war hero.

So, I'm opening up the floor to the Bleeding Heartland community. Are you ecstatic, optimistic, skeptical, or disappointed with Obama's Iraq policy? Do you believe he will stick to the deadlines he outlined this week for the end of combat operations and the withdrawal of all residual troops?

Feel free to discuss our Afghanistan policy in this thread too. Obama plans to increase the number of U.S. troops there, but Senator Russ Feingold and some others are wondering whether more troops will help us achieve our stated mission.

Obama for Sensible Priorities

by: noneed4thneed

Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 22:06:40 PM CST

If you attended any political events leading up to the Iowa Caucuses you know about Iowans for Sensible Priorities. They are the ones that handed out the pens with the pull out charts, had the pie chart car, and passed out cookies with pie charts on them. There goals were to...

Increase funding to meet the needs of our children and children around the world (at no additional taxpayer expense) by reducing money spent on the Pentagon for Cold War weapons systems no longer needed to protect America.

Withdrawing from Iraq, and cutting $300 billion in other defense spending, would wipe out the increases in military spending under the Bush administration. It would even reduce military spending to a smaller percentage of the federal budget than it was during the Clinton administration.

Bleeding Heartland Year in Review: Iowa politics in 2008

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 22:00:00 PM CST

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I've linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I'll do a review of Bleeding Heartland's 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

Open thread on playing it safe or being bold

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 15:01:03 PM CST

From my perspective, Bill Clinton's presidency was not very successful for a lot of reasons. Some of them were his fault: he put the wrong people in charge of certain jobs, and he picked the wrong battles and listened too much to Wall Street advisers when it came to policy.

Some things were not Clinton's fault: the Democrats who ran Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not always interested in working with him, and the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress were more interested in destroying his presidency than anything else.

After getting burned in the 1994 elections, Clinton hired Dick Morris as a political adviser and moved to the right in order to get re-elected. He served a full two terms, but he didn't leave a mark on this country. His greatest achievement, balancing the budget, was undone quickly by his successor. Many smaller successes on environmental and social policies were also reversed by George Bush's administration.

Clinton approved a bunch of good presidential directives, especially on the environment, during his last 60 days in office. Doing them years earlier would not only have been good policy, it also would have prevented Ralph Nader from gaining so much traction in 2000.

Clinton left some very big problems unaddressed, like global warming and our reliance on foreign oil, because the obvious solutions to these problems would have been unpopular.

Compare Clinton's legacy to that of Lyndon Johnson. Although Johnson made terrible mistakes in Vietnam (continuing and compounding mistakes made by John F. Kennedy), he enacted a domestic agenda that changed this country forever. Some of Johnson's achievements were popular (Medicare), while others cost the Democrats politically in many states (the Civil Rights Act). But Johnson did not shy away from big change on civil rights because of the political cost.

I understand that no president will ever do everything I'd like to see done. I'd be satisfied if Obama enacted a groundbreaking, lasting improvement in one or two big areas, like health care or global warming. The right policies often have powerful enemies. I would rather see Obama get good laws passed to address a couple of big problems, even if doing so costs him the 2012 election.

My fear is that in Obama will end up like Bill Clinton--a two-term president who didn't achieve anything that will continue to affect Americans' lives four or five decades down the road.

If Obama only goes to the mat to accomplish one or two big things, what should they be? Keeping his promise to end the war in Iraq? Getting universal health care through Congress? Taking real steps to address climate change? Enacting a huge public-works program to deal with unemployment? Building high-speed rail connecting major American cities?

Would you be satisfied with progress in one or two areas, even if it meant that Obama was not re-elected in 2012?

After the jump I've posted a "meme" on being bold in your personal life, which is going around some of the "mommy blogs." Some of the questions have more to do with luck or having money than with taking risks or being bold, though.

Open thread on Hillary Clinton and Obama's national security team

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:47:27 AM CST

Obama's introductory remarks are remarkably poetic. "America's values are our country's greatest export to the world."

He's announced his nomination of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state ("I am proud that she will be our next secretary of state...She will help restore our reputation around the world,") Robert Gates at defense ("responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control",) Eric Holder for Attorney General ("The Attorney General serves the American people...I have no doubt he will uphold the constitution,") Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security ("she insists on competence and accountability,") Susan Rice as Ambassador to the UN and Jim Jones as National Security Advisor.

"We will shape our times instead of being shaped by them." [...]

As for his choice of Clinton at state, "it was not a lightbulb moment...she shares my core values and the values of the American people. I was always interested after the primary was over in finding ways to collaborate...It occurred to me that she could potentially be an outstanding secretary of state, I offered her the position and she accepted."

On whether he still intends to remove troops from Iraq in 16 months: "Remember what I said during the campaign. I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months keeping in mind that it might be necessary to maintain a residual force...As I said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders."

Like I said last week, I have a bad feeling Gates and Jones were chosen in order to give Obama cover for breaking his campaign promises on Iraq.

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press has details about the deal Bill Clinton made to allow his wife to become Barack Obama's secretary of state. Apparently, the former president agreed:

-to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.

-to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.

-to cease holding CGI meetings overseas.

-to volunteer to step away from day to day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.

-to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.

-to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.

I still think Hillary Clinton would be able to accomplish more over her lifetime as a senator from New York, but clearly she was strongly motivated to accept this position in Obama's government.

However, I continue to be amused by the anguished commentaries from those Obama supporters who got too wrapped up in the primary battle to deal with Hillary in her new role.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

Who thinks we'll be out of Iraq in 18 months?

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 22:37:37 PM CST

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

I've been skeptical about whether Obama would follow through on this promise ever since I learned in April that Colin Kahl, the man Obama put in charge of his working group on Iraq, was secretly recommending that the U.S. leave 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010.

As of June, Kahl was still Obama's leading adviser on Iraq, and he co-authored a report advocating that "a large contingent of American forces [remain] in Iraq for several years".

Now Obama is leaning toward leaving Robert Gates in charge of the Department of Defense for some time. In the best-case scenario, Gates would oversee the phased withdrawal of troops over a 16-month period, and then Obama would put someone else in charge of the DOD. On the other hand, it seems plausible that someone George W. Bush trusted to enact his Iraq policy might strongly advise the new president to back off from his planned timetable.

Consider Obama's reported choice of General Jim Jones as national security adviser. Does it seem likely that this man, who backed John McCain for president, would encourage Obama to get us out of Iraq as quickly as we could safely do so?

The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, reported over the weekend,

There is growing concern among a new generation of anti-war foreign policy analysts in Washington, many of whom stuck their necks out to support Mr Obama early in the White House race, that they will be frozen out of his administration.

Mrs Clinton is expected to appoint her own top team at the State Department, drawn from more conservative thinkers.

A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: "They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place." Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future.

Although I never thought Obama and Clinton were very different on Iraq or other policy matters, I feel sorry for the policy wonks who supported Obama because they thought he would be better on Iraq.

As Al Giordano recently reminded us, these people took a big risk for Obama:

Way back in ancient times - I'm talking about 2007 - the most difficult place to be a supporter of then-Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid was inside the Washington DC beltway. [...]

If you were a Democrat in or around DC and backed Obama for president you were a pariah, shunned, no longer invited to the cocktail parties or policy panels. And no small number of Clinton bandwagoneers would take every chance to remind you that, once the White House had been reconquered, you would be screwed to the wall, and viciously so.

I have no contacts in DC, but this account has the ring of truth for me. I remember one particularly obnoxious Clinton supporter who used to comment at MyDD regularly during 2007. When Hillary's nomination seemed inevitable, he would brag about his Washington connections and how after she wrapped things up on Super Tuesday, hellfire would rain down on certain people who had supported Obama for president.

I am not opposed to Clinton as secretary of state, but I think Obama owes something to the people who were there for him early on because (they thought) he was a strong opponent of the Iraq War.

For me, the most shocking part of the Telegraph story was this:

Suspicion of Mr Obama's moves has been compounded, for some liberals, by the revelation that Mr Obama has for several months been taking advice from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.

Scowcroft? I know a lot of Democrats would be happy to see Obama serve out Bill Clinton's third term, but I'm pretty sure none of them voted for Obama so that he could serve out Poppy Bush's second term.

The Wall Street Journal confirms the connections between Obama and Scowcroft:

Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.

Mr. Scowcroft spoke by phone with President-elect Barack Obama last week, the latest in a months-long series of conversations between the two men about defense and foreign-policy issues, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The relationship between the president-elect and the Republican heavyweight suggests that Mr. Scowcroft's views, which place a premium on an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, might hold sway in the Obama White House.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Obama pick up the Israeli-Palesstinian peace process, and I am aware that Scowcroft has criticized George W. Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Still, it seems unjust for Obama to get elected on the promise of big change and then turn around an appoint a bunch of Scowcroft's buddies to his foreign policy shop--especially if the foreign policy experts who were there for Obama early on are left out in the cold.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I am finding it hard to believe that the American military presence in Iraq will be down to a small residual force 18 months from now.

Your thoughts and rebuttals are welcome in the comments.

Report: Gulf War Syndrome "is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences"

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 18:14:46 PM CST

A report released Monday concluded that "Gulf War Syndrome" is a legitimate condition suffered by more than 175,000 U.S. war veterans who were exposed to chemical toxins in the 1991 Gulf War. [...]

"Scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans," said the committee, which has been looking into the problem since 2002. [...]

Gulf War Syndrome affects at least one-fourth of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 effort to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, or between 175,000 and 210,000 veterans in all, the report found. Few have seen their symptoms improve over the past 17 years, the report said.

Symptoms include persistent headaches, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties, unexplained fatigue, skin rashes, chronic diarrhea and digestive and respiratory problems.
[...]

The panel found two possible causes: a drug given to troops to protect against nerve gas, known as pyridostigmine bromide, and pesticides that were used heavily during the war.

The panel said other possible causes could not be ruled out, including extensive exposure to smoke from oil-well fires and low-level exposure to sarin gas when captured Iraqi stocks were destroyed.

I hope that further research will uncover effective treatments for these veterans, as well as more details about the causes. We need to make sure that future veterans are not exposed to whatever toxins caused this illness in so many Gulf War veterans.

Veterans Day open thread

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM CST

NavyBlueWife has a nice piece up at MyDD on the history of Veterans Day and what it means to honor our veterans.

Via BarbinMD I learned that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and the Ad Council have launched a "national multimedia public service advertising (PSA) campaign."

The campaign aims to address the mental health consequences of combat, which threaten to overwhelm a new generation of veterans. The 1.7 million men and women who have served, or are currently serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing an increased risk of mental health issues. Nearly 20 percent of military servicemembers who have returned - 300,000 in all - report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment, according to a RAND Corporation study released in April 2008. Untreated mental health conditions can cause or aggravate other debilitating problems in the veterans' community including high rates of unemployment, suicide, homelessness, substance abuse, divorce and child abuse.

Created pro bono by ad agency BBDO New York, the campaign seeks to increase the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who seek treatment for mental health issues by connecting them with other veterans with whom they can discuss the issues they face as they readjust to civilian life. The campaign includes television, radio, print, outdoor and Web advertising. The TV spots feature Iraq veterans who are Purple Heart recipients.

You can view the ad here or at the new Community of Veterans website, which is designed for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is the home page of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

The "IGTNT" team of diarists at Daily Kos write tributes to all American troops who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan. Today's edition of this series contains links to many organizations that support and honor veterans.

Thanks to all veterans who have served in peacetime or wartime.

Thanks also to all the members of Congress who voted for the "new GI Bill" in May (you can find the roll call votes for the U.S. House and Senate here). My dad went to college on the GI Bill in the 1940s, and his family would not have been able to afford the tuition otherwise.

This is an open thread for any thoughts you have related to Veterans Day, or anyone you are remembering today.

UPDATE: I learned something new today in this letter to the Des Moines Register: Remember veterans: Fund ALS research

Very few people, including those serving in the military today, know that veterans are twice as likely to die from ALS - the deadly disease known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.

We don't know why vets are more likely to develop ALS. But we do know that the disease takes the strongest among us - our military heroes - and robs them of the ability to walk, move their arms, talk, eat and even breathe on their own. They are isolated and awake, alive with the knowledge that they are trapped inside a body they no longer can control.

As the disease progresses, there is little they can do, for there is no treatment for ALS. It is fatal in an average of just two to five years.

Urge elected officials to support funding for ALS research at the Department of Defense so we can learn why the disease is stealing our heroes and take action to protect them. Recently both Congress and the Veterans Administration have supported ALS research and provided benefits to veterans with the disease, but more must be done.

Veterans ask, "Why, Congressman Latham?"

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM CDT

This is a solid ad, and I'd like to see it on television screens as well as computer screens. You can donate to the Greenwald campaign through her website.

Incumbent Tom Latham started running this negative ad about the bailout last week:

As I noticed while listening to the two radio debates between Latham and Greenwald, Latham is clinging to his bailout votes like a life raft, and yet:

Here's Latham's voting record on corporate subsidies.

Here's Latham's voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power.

Here's Latham's voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Latham must be very grateful to be able to talk about the bailout instead of his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers.

If you live in the fourth district or have friends and relatives there, please spread the word about Latham's voting record as a whole.

But more important, please get involved with the Greenwald campaign as a volunteer in the final stretch.

Events coming up this weekend

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:00:17 AM CDT

If you would be willing to show up outside the event wearing a chicken suit representing King's refusal to debate Rob Hubler, please e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. There may be a chicken suit you could borrow.

Fewer than 50 days remain before the election. If you haven't done so already, contact the campaign offices of your local statehouse candidate or Congressional candidate, or one of the Obama field offices in Iowa (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/iaoffices) to find out what kind of help they need from volunteers.

Remember, if you are not comfortable calling strangers on the phone or knocking on strangers' doors, there are many other ways volunteers can help.

Post a comment or send me an e-mail if I've left out any important events.

Friday, September 19:

From the Obama campaign in Iowa:

Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner to Campaign in Iowa on Behalf of Obama Campaign

Governor Minner will hold events in Knoxville and Ames to talk about the Obama-Biden plans to bring America the change we need

Des Moines, Iowa - On Friday, September 19th, 2008, Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner will visit Iowa to talk to Iowans about the Obama-Biden plans to ensure fairness and economic security for Iowa's working women.   Gov. Minner will hold a brown bag lunch in Knoxville and a meet and greet in Ames.

Since taking office in 2001, Gov. Minner has worked to get things done in Delaware by improving schools, preserving and protecting the environment, improving health care and fighting cancer, and creating and keeping jobs.

Beginning her political career in 1974, Gov. Minner served four terms in the state House of Representatives (1974-1982), and served three terms in the state Senate (1982-1993). She served as Delaware's Lieutenant Governor from 1993 until 2001. Gov. Minner became the 72nd governor and the first female governor of the state of Delaware on January 3, 2001.

The details of the events are:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2008
12:00 PM CDT
Women's Brown Bag Lunch with Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Coffee Connection
213 E Main St., #2
Knoxville, Iowa

6:00 PM CDT
Women's Meet and Greet with Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Legend's American Grill
119 Stanton Ave
7th floor in the Legacy Suite
Ames, Iowa

A little bird told me:

Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. will host a grand opening celebration at its ethanol plant in Superior, Iowa, on Saturday, September 20, 2008. The festivities will run from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and include food and refreshments courtesy of local livestock producers. Congressman Steve King will speak at a dedication ceremony, which begins at noon. Attendees will also have the opportunity to take guided tours of the plant.

Superior is between Spirit Lake and Estherville.  If you are in the area, you might want to pack up your video camera and show.

The Iowa Citizen Action Network is participating in a nationwide canvassing effort to knock on a million doors for peace. MoveOn.org is also involved with this effort. If you've got two hours to spare on Saturday, you can sign up to get a list of 40 new or infrequent voters in your neighborhood. You can do this individually wherever you live, or sign up to join groups that will be meeting in Des Moines, Ames and Waterloo. More details are after the jump.  Contact ICAN Organizer Sue Dinsdale at sdinsdale@iowacan.org or 515-277-5077 ext. 14 or go to milliondoorsforpeace.org

From the Obama campaign:

Des Moines, Iowa - On Saturday, September 20th, 2008, Congressman Leonard Boswell will hold an event in Newton as part of the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change's "Iowa Economic Security Tour."

The future of our nation's economy is a focal point in this election, and Congressman Boswell will highlight the differences between the Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin economic plans. This week, Governor Culver and economist Dean Baker kicked off the tour with events in Davenport, Ottumwa and Des Moines.

On the very same day Lehman Brothers collapsed and our stock market was in a freefall this week, John McCain once again declared, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."  Really?

"This statement ignores the realities Americans are facing every day," said Obama Iowa state director Jackie Norris.  "Our country has lost more than 600,000 jobs this year and is averaging nearly 10,000 foreclosures a day.  The fundamentals of our economy are anything but strong, and we need a president who understands that fact.  Barack Obama will cut taxes for middle class families by three times as much as McCain, create good paying jobs by investing in Iowa renewable energies and end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas."      

Over the coming weeks, the campaign will host events across Iowa where elected officials, community leaders and policy advisers will talk about Senator Obama's plan to make our economy work for middle class families and Senator McCain's plan to give Americans four more years of Bush economic policies that favor big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

The details are:

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2008
4:00 PM CDT
Economic Security Tour event with Congressman Leonard Boswell
Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office
207 1st Ave. W
Newton, Iowa
 

From the Sierra Club:

Why our Modern Food System is Not Sustainable

September 20, Ames area

Join us on Saturday, September 20, as we celebrate together the efforts and achievements of fellow Iowa Sierrans and conservation activists at the Story County Conservation Center in McFarland Park north of Ames. Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture will be the featured speaker. His presentation, "Why our Modern Food System is not Sustainable," will offer Fred's unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities we face in balancing an agricultural economy with the protection of our natural heritage. The banquet begins with a social time and silent auction at 11:00 a.m. followed at noon by lunch, Dr. Kirschenmann and an awards ceremony. There are also opportunities to hike the many trails in the park. The event will be catered by renowned Lucallan's Restaurant, featuring local foods. The cost is $35 per person.

Please RSVP to Neila Seaman, 3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280, Des Moines, Iowa, 50310 or Iowa.chapter@sierraclub.org or 515-277-8868.

The Latino Heritage Festival runs Saturday and Sunday in Blank Park on SW 9th by the Zoo in Des Moines. The Polk County Democrats need volunteers to help with the booth, especially anyone who speaks Spanish.  Ideally, we would like to have at least one Spanish speaking person on every shift. The hours are 11am to 7pm Saturday, September 20th and 11am to 7pm Sunday, September 21st.  Any time you are available to help during those hours would be appreciated.  To volunteer, please call Tamyra at 515-285-1800.

Johnson County Heritage Trust Autumn Celebration

The 2nd annual "Under a Cider Moon . . . a Celebration of Autumn with the Johnson County Heritage Trust" fundraising event will be held Saturday, September 20, at 6 p.m at Dick Schwab's round barn located at 2501 Sugar Bottom Road near Solon, Iowa.  There will be a live and silent auction, live music and local food and beverages. Proceeds will assist JCHT identify, preserve and manage land with significant environmental value in Johnson County.  For additional information visit www.jcht.org or call 1-319-857-4741.  RSVP today by mailing your check or donation to Johnson County Heritage Trust, P. O. Box 2523, Iowa City, Iowa 522440-2523 or by calling credit card information to 1-319-857-4741.

This would be a good place for someone in a chicken suit to stand outside with a sign asking Steve King why he's afraid to debate Rob Hubler:

Gov. Pawlenty is headed to Iowa this weekend to keynote the Polk County GOP Dinner. Here's the release from the Iowa GOP:
Pawlenty to headline GOPfest '08
(Des Moines) -- The Polk County GOP has released details for GOPfest '08, their annual informal fundraiser. This year's event will be headlined by  Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
GOPfest '08 will take place on Saturday, September 20th at 7 Flags Event Center, 2100 NW 100 St in Clive. Doors will open at 5:30 p.m. with dinner service beginning at 6 p.m. Entertainment will provided by the Sunny Humbucker Band.
Speakers for GOPfest '08 will include Polk County Chairman Ted Sporer, U.S. House candidate Kim Schmett, U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Reed and 5th District Congressman Steve King. Governor Pawlenty is expected to make his keynote remarks at 7:30 p.m.
"We are very pleased to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty come to Polk County for GOPfest '08," Sporer said. "Governor Pawlenty is one of the nationally recognized figures in the new generation of Republican leadership and GOPfest is a great opportunity for the people of central Iowa to see and meet him."
The event is open to the public and tickets can be reserved by email at  ExDir@polkgop.com or by calling 515-280-6438. Cost is $25 for adults, $15 for students and children five years or under admitted free.