| |
|
Sunday, June 3, 2007
|
|
From Fox News, "Eight foreign Islamic militants were killed during fighting with Somali government forces at a remote, mountainous northeastern Somali village, the vice president of the region said Saturday. At least one U.S. warship late Friday pounded the village after the government forces clashed with the militants. Government forces in the semiautonomous northeastern region of Puntland are pursuing another five foreign Islamic militants, Vice President Hassan Dahir Mohamoud told The Associated Press."
"2008 pres"
9:42:03 AM 
|
|
Mayor Hickenlooper is hoping to team up with the organizers of the 2008 GOP National Convention to address both committee's problems raising the dough necessary to throw the bashes, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "Looking for ways to boost fundraising for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Mayor John Hickenlooper has formed a strategic partnership with planners for the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn...Hickenlooper's spokeswoman, Marlena Fernandez Berkowitz, said Saturday that the mayor will team up this summer with St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman to make the rounds in several cities. St. Paul will host the Republicans in 2008."
"2008 pres"
9:34:50 AM
|
|
Will the U.S. be in Iraq for decades? Diane Carman caught up with Gary Hart to ask his opinion, since he predicted that outcome in 2003. She writes about the possiblity in her column in today's Denver Post. From the article:
I never wanted Gary Hart to be right. Heck, the former U.S. senator surely would have preferred to be wrong when he said that American troops could remain in Iraq for decades. "People roll their eyes when I say that, but look, we've been in Korea 50 years," he told me in March 2003...
Fast forward to last week, when I heard White House spokesman Tony Snow trying to explain the Bush administration's vision for the future in Iraq. American troops might have "an over-the-horizon support role ... as we have in South Korea," he said.
My jaw dropped. I called Hart.
"Tony Snow gave the first official indication of what the strategy was all along," Hart said. Americans were led to believe that the troops would overthrow a brutal dictator, remove weapons of mass destruction and then leave. "The people who planned it all along had in mind that this would be our military and political base in the region," Hart said. "The fact that anyone in the administration still clings to that hope is delusional." In every way but the time factor, the comparison with South Korea is ridiculous. In Iraq, there's no border, no truce and no opposition government with which to negotiate. "It's totally different," Hart said. "What I meant was that by kicking open that hornet's nest, we'd have no choice but to stay and try to fix it, and that could take half a century."[...]
What's particularly exasperating for Hart is that it has taken four years for Americans to wake up to the fact that they've been deceived. "The American people can't simply distrust their leaders," he said. "The answer is to question leadership more intensely before making major decisions. That was not done." The reality is that with rare exceptions, war is obsolete. The true shock and awe of Iraq has been that the most sophisticated military power on earth has been utterly flummoxed by a bunch of guys assembling cheap explosive devices in their garages and detonating them with cellphones. More than 30,000 Americans have died or been injured in combat to date - with May the third-deadliest month in the war so far - and the tragedy is that our national security is more precarious than ever. The war has made it worse...
It takes diplomacy, strategic economic policy and cooperation to solve critical problems that have no respect for national boundaries. Hart, who predicted a terrorist attack with mass casualties long before 9/11 and who argued strenuously against the invasion of Iraq, remains actively engaged in the debate about how to build a secure future for Americans. He's working on a proposal for a 21st-century national security policy for whoever becomes the next president. He's helping to develop a climate action project with dozens of scientists from around the country, and he's working with the Aspen Institute to prepare international initiatives to slow global warming.
Meanwhile TalkLeft writes, "Frank Rich seems to believe that those of us agitating for the Democratic Congress ending the Iraq Debacle by setting a date certain for not funding, what I term the Reid-Feingold framework, are being unrealistic and unreasonable. Like the Democrats in Congress and many pundits and bloggers, Mr. Rich believes Republicans will end the Debacle."
Don Surber: "I was not surprised that the Washington Post did not buy the Iraq=Korea argument that President Bush made earlier this week. In its lead editorial today, the Post argued that a 53-year ceasefire can hardly be duplicated. Still, the Post understands that U.S. support of the fledgling Iraqi democracy cannot end with The Surge."
"2008 pres"
9:29:15 AM
|
|
The U.S. Senate failed to pass requirements for the Corp of Engineers to consider climate change with regard to projects, according to U.S. Water News Online. From the article:
The vote was 51-42 in favor of the amendment to a water projects bill, falling nine short of the 60 votes needed to approve it under the rules set for the debate. But sponsors of the proposal, led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said it was significant the Senate was finally facing the issue head-on. It was the first time in this session of Congress that climate change had reached a vote on the Senate floor, Kerry said. "Tonight we got a majority of senators to stand up and demand that climate change be taken seriously," he said. With the vote, he said, the Senate "has gone on record about global warming and sent a statement that its impact must be considered in our public policy debates."
The proposal would have directed the Army Corps, in drawing up future projects, to use the best available climate science to account for climate change on storms and floods. Wetlands and floodplains act as buffers between hurricanes and other severe storms and coastal communities, said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., another sponsor. "When Corps projects destroy these and other types of natural barriers, they may put lives at risk." Kerry said the current guidelines for Corps project planning were written in 1983, long before scientists were focused on whether human activities were contributing to the warming of the planet.
Opposition was led by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate's leading skeptic of human-induced global warming. Inhofe said that theory was being perpetrated by "environmental alarmists who want to scare people." He said the Kerry amendment was "clearly aimed" at moving the Senate toward a tax on carbon or other government efforts to limit carbon output.The committee chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she had received assurances from the Corps that they have long taken into account the possible affects of climate change on such phenomena as sea level rises.
The global warming measure had the strong backing of environmental groups, including American Rivers, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation. Chelsea Maxwell, legislative director of the National Wildlife Federation, said it was unfortunate that senators let their enthusiasm for passing legislation filled with hundreds of pet projects for their home states "get in the way of something important like the global warming amendment."
"colorado water"
8:23:45 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 12:59:52 PM.
|
|
|
