State Representative Stephen Webber (D-23), a Missouri Boys State alumni and staffer spoke to Boys State participants Tuesday night in Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri.
Missouri State Representative Stephen Webber (D-23)
Representative Stephen Webber: ...Boys State has been a part of my life the last nine years, not just in the weeks I've spent here on this campus, but really in the lessons that I've learned here. And I apply them each and every day.
I'm very, very honored and grateful to have an opportunity to address you today. It's meaningful to me and I appreciate all that you, and all the members of the Boys State staff, and the Legionnaires, my fellow Legionnaires have done. I appreciate it. I'm grateful.
You all have an opportunity to hear from a tremendous variety of speakers. You just heard the Governor of the State of Missouri. You're hearing other speakers this week who are of state and national prominence. And it can be difficult to try to figure out in this short period of time what I can say that would maybe leave some sort of mark. Or sort of inspire somebody in this room to something. So what I decided to do tonight is to tell you a story. It's one story, it's a hard story, but I think by the end of it you'll understand why the principles that Boys State stands for means so much to me and why I'm committed to public service...
God does have a sense of humor, but she's still pissed.
Of course it's all over the news and blogs. I'm not sure most people realize the scope and breadth of the insult.
My mother and aunts were raised in a French colony in North Africa. As a result, as children, we - my sibling, my cousins and I - were exposed to the variety of cultural mores in our parents' lives in a number of practical ways. When we got into some mischief which upset them the adults would reach for and remove a shoe from their foot.
When that happened we knew we were in serious trouble.
On Monday, I asked members of Congress in Missouri and those running for the position if they would comment on the recent dustup between Barack Obama and John McCain over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's support for Obama's withdrawal plan.
The first two responses are in. Byron DeLear was not surprisingly first to comment, doing so (bonus points!) in a long comment here on the blog. Money quote:
We must reverse Bush and Akin's policy in Iraq, send a message to the Iraqi government that we don't intend on occupying their country permanently, and begin an immediate and responsible "phased withdrawal" of our troops.
This means systematically redeploying those troops, bringing our national guard troops home, and reengaging the international community, including the UN into a peace-keeping role.
Most candidates like to discuss these issues as if they were running for Commander-in-Chief, that is, 'here is my plan for Iraq' -- or -- 'this is my 10 year road map for the Iraq War', etc.
And although there may be value in unpacking the 'big picture' here from an academic perspective, or just from a conversational one, as a Federal legislator for MO-2, I will be just one of 435 votes in the US House.
A progressive vote.
And Lyndon Bode, a relatively conservative Democratic candidate for the 9th Congressional District, chimes in via e-mail:
Yes - I would support the withdrawal of troops with the request of Iraq government officials saying they are ready to take charge. Therefore if they support Obama's plan then I support the plan. I believe this has been the goal from the start. A free Iraq country and government.
Earlier this week, Iraq's prime minister announced that he agreed in principle with Barack Obama's plan to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. McCain thinks US troops should remain for a hundred years or more.
Now that we know where the two prospective leaders of our country stand, and where the leader of the country we currently occupy stands, I'm curious about you stand on one of the top issues facing America. And by you, I mean you, the commenters on this blog, and you, Claire McCaskill, and you, Kit Bond, and you, Sam Graves, and you, Russ Carnahan, and so on, right through everyone in Missouri either serving in Congress or running a campaign to do so next year.
Do you agree in general with Obama and the prime minister of Iraq, or with John McCain? Where do you stand?
I'll post the answers from electeds and candidates as I receive them through e-mail or in comments.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki agrees with Barack Obama's plan for a US withdrawal from Iraq.
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
The citizens of the US don't want us in Iraq. The citizens of Iraq don't want us in Iraq. Now the leader of Iraq publicly says he doesn't want us in Iraq. So what are we still doing there?
It'll be nice when we complete the loop and have a leader with a clue.
Here's a jiffy update on the DNC ad that shows McSame saying he'd be fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years: He's livid. He's screaming foul. As well he might. Huffington Post reports that:
Results from a new national study among 629 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and independent voters showed that after viewing a new DNC ad attacking Senator McCain, independent voters' favorability ratings of the senator decreased by 10% points.
(hat tip to Jesse Lee for this one.) I don't know if it was the pope's visit or what, but the New York Times story about the Pentagon's use of retired generals as propaganda puppets seemed to get lost in the shuffle this week. If you haven't heard, these high-level retired military officers relied on access to the Pentagon to work in a second career as consultants to defense contractors. The Pentagon used that fact to pressure them to stay on message to support the war in Iraq, as many of them also found themselves in high demand as defense experts for network and cable news. Well, Ike Skelton was appropriately outraged.
During an interview with Craig Unger about his new book "The Fall Of The House Of Bush", Amy Goodman of Democracy Now (transcript here) refers to comments made by Dick Cheney in September 1992 after the first Gulf War, in a speech at the Economic Club of Detroit explaining why the George H. W. Bush administration did not go on to Baghdad after Saddam then.
Cheney's comments in the speech show clearly that they knew irrefutably in 2003 before the invasion, not only that Saddam Hussein was no threat militarily to any country, much less to the United States, but that they also knew exactly what the conditions in Iraq likely to be produced by an invasion would be, and that they did it with eyes wide open, with conscious and full intention of producing the humanitarian crisis and chaos and death that has followed.
And knew that the responsibility for it would be theirs.
Cheney's speech begins at about 3 min 50 sec into this Democracy Now Craig Unger interview video:
Parts two and three of the Democracy Now Craig Unger interview follow here:
Just in time for Christmas, UNICEF has released their preliminary findings from a report on the status of children in Iraq after nearly five years of warfare.
The findings are grim.
Two million children are threatened by disease, inadequate nutrition and inconsistent education. And making matters worse, children are frequently caught in the crossfire - literally.
"Iraqi children are paying far too high a price," said Roger Wright, UNICEF's Special Representative for Iraq. "While we have been providing as much assistance as possible, a new window of opportunity is opening, which should enable us to reach the most vulnerable with expanded, consistent support. We must act now."
"I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House," Corker said.
Bob - if you continue down this path, we are going to have to show you the secret handshake known only to members of the "Reality Based Community."
My father, a World War II veteran, instilled in me an appreciation of our armed forces, and the young men and women who have done so much to protect the freedoms we cherish. He taught me to appreciate the gravity of warfare, and that war should be pursued only when there are simply no alternatives available.
The Iraq conflict represents the unfortunate result when these principles are ignored, and I will continue to do everything in my power to force the President to change course. But Congress must be equally vigilant to ensure that new flashpoints in the Middle East do not follow the same failed course as our Iraq policy.
In particular, I have been concerned with the Bush Administration's provocative rhetoric on Iran, and I am using my seat in the United States Senate to remind the President that military action requires the express consent of Congress. I have resisted efforts to provide what I would call "backdoor" approval for military action in that country. Last month, the Senate considered an amendment that would categorize Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "foreign terrorist organization". To me, adoption of this amendment could essentially provide approval of military action against Iran, especially by this Administration. I am also concerned that this amendment was debated without the benefit of a single hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member.
I voted against the amendment, and this month joined Senator Jim Webb and other Senate Democrats in a letter to President Bush stating, "We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action
against Iran."
If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that we must be aggressive and vigilant in stopping President Bush and Vice President Cheney from dragging us into new military quagmires. I will continue to do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.
A 105mm M1 Abrams tank, outside the Tank-Army Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI
On Monday, ten specially trained auditors, criminal investigators and acquisitions experts will descend on the Tank-Army Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) north of Detroit to begin an audit of a sampling of approximately 6000 contracts worth $2.8 billion issued by an Army office in Kuwait that has been identified as a hotbed of corruption.
The office in question, located at Camp Arifjan, buys supplies and gear to support American G.I.'s as they rotate in and out of Iraq. Nearly two dozen Army, military and civilian employees have been charged with accepting bribes and kickbacks, and $15 million has changed hands. Depending on what the investigators discover, the number of individuals charged will likely grow. Currently the Army Criminal Investigations Command has 83 ongoing corruption investigations relating to contract fraud.
The highest profile corruption case to be charged so far involves Army Maj. John Cockerham, who stands accused of bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction. Prosecutors charge that Cockerham, in concert with his wife and sister, took at least $9.6 million in bribes in 2004 and 2005 during the time he was a contract officer in Kuwait.
Some of the red flags that have been raised include contracts awarded to vendors outside the usual competitive bidding process and contracts that went through the motions of the bidding process, then were awarded to the highest rather than the lowest bids. In other instances, what was purchased was not what was delivered.
As frustrated as anti-war activists in Missouri have been with McCaskill for her unwillingness to defund the war, and as angry as progressives have been about her FISA vote, some on the left are tempted to proclaim that we might as well have Jim Talent still in office.
Given the fact the United States has more taxpayer-backed private contractors in Iraq than combat troops, given the fact that cost-plus arrangements allow contractors to gain a greater return the more tax dollars they spend on a project, given the fact that billions of U.S. dollars and thousands of U.S. weapons remain unaccounted for in the war zone, folks might consider this as low-lying fruit.
But someone needs to pick it. Sen. McCaskill, with a prosecutor's zeal and an auditor's precision, seems the right person at the right time.
On September 9, 2007 CBS News and the New York Times released a 1035 sample poll in which the interviews took place between September 4th and the 8th.
I was struck by this particular response:
33% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th attacks on the United States, while 58% say he was not. These numbers haven't changed much over the last two years.
ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America....
....What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda....
A columnist compares the Iraq War to a "dollar auction", a standard tool that economics professors use to show seemingly rational thought processes leading to an irrational result.
Here's how the dollar auction works: A person announces that they will auction off a dollar. The catch is that the second-highest bidder has to give the highest bidder the amount of their bid. For example, if the winning bid was 3 cents, and the second highest was 2 cents, the winner would gain $1.02 ($1 from the auction and 2 cents from his/her competitor.) In experiments, the bidding always escalates past the point where even the winner can expect to gain something. However, the bidding usually continues, as the rationale shifts to one of buffering losses with at least some meager returns, rather than actual gains.
Ike Skelton, who actually sponsored a withdrawal bill:
This is the fundamental dilemma we face in Iraq-our soldiers fight hard and they are showing some results, and we should take every opportunity we get to thank them for their sacrifices and work on behalf of our nation. But their efforts do not seem to be matched by the government of Iraq. When the President announced the surge, it was intended to improve security to create space for political progress.
By some measures, the heroic efforts of our troops have created some space. But there has not been any great political progress. We are left asking ourselves why we should expect this record to be different in the future and whether further American efforts will be of any effect. It is not clear to me why we should continue to move ahead with this strategy at the cost of American lives and dollars if the Iraqis are not stepping forward.
But unfortunately, I don't think there has been enough conversation yet about something other than the two extremes. I don't think any of us in Washington want an expeditious drawdown of all our troops in Iraq. And on the other hand, I don't think most people in American want us to continue to stand in the middle of a civil war. I think there is something in between. I will look forward in the hearing tomorrow, I will look forward to questioning General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, as I know many other senators will, about what would be in between.
I'm really freaking curious as to what sort of answers Senator McCaskill is going to get regarding this triangulation enlightened Middle Way she's searching for. I'm even more curious to hear her answer Representative Skelton's question - Why should we expect further American efforts to be effective? Why should we "continue to move ahead with this strategy at the cost of American lives and dollars if the Iraqis are not stepping forward[?]"
UPDATE: This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. Note that Skelton is a conservative Democrat. Even conservative Republican Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones voted for withdrawal in March.
Make sure you call McCaskill's office and give her a piece of your mind (respectfully but firmly.) And call Skelton's office and thank him for his representation. Check below the fold for contact info.
Our noon vigils on the Quad had been somewhat quiet of late. Not today. Maybe it was because of the sock puppet's speech last night. His supporters seem to be getting uncomfortable.
McClatchy Newspapers has an online explanation of its Iraq casualties story. The original story was also carried by the Kansas City Star on September 2nd under a different (and misleading) headline in its printed "Kansas City Edition".
A story by Pentagon Correspondent Nancy A. Youssef that we published on Sunday sparked a huge outcry in the blogosphere this week....
I first wrote about the versions of the article here.
Just in time for Christmas, UNICEF has released their preliminary findings from a report on the status of children in Iraq after nearly five years of warfare.
As frustrated as anti-war activists in Missouri have been with McCaskill for her unwillingness to defund the war, and as angry as progressives have been about her FISA vote, some on the left are tempted to proclaim that we might as well have Jim Talent still in office.