Former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), who moderated an event on behalf of the Iranian opposition group MEK in Washington D.C. two weeks ago, told TPM in an interview that he is "personally offended" that the group is currently considered a terrorist organization by the State Department.... "They've been a victim of terribly bad luck," he said.
MEK's curious history includes a Marxist phase, a French phase, and a Saddam Hussein phase. Naturally they seem to be professional lobbyists today who are also on an official terrorist list. You can see why adding the Torch to the story was icing on the cake.
It seems every day in December is a big day for legislatures as they work to finish up business for the year. Here's the significant news of the day from New Jersey's Members of Congress.
A minority of Republican senators blocked the Defense Authorization Act. Senator Lautenberg tells it like it is:
"Senate Republicans refuse to even begin debating a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. The other side has run out of excuses. Eliminating 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is the right thing to do and would ensure that our military policy reflects the values of our nation.
"The fact that Republican Senators are willing to hold up a bill that provides vital resources to our troops and ends discrimination in our military is deplorable. I will continue working to pass a Defense Authorization bill that provides our military with the equipment and services they need while also bringing an end to discrimination within the ranks."
Of course, Democrats letting Republicans takes "hostages" will go on as long as our Senators and our President let them. Why did they add DADT to the bill if they give up anyway? What was the point?
More below on the Anthrax investigation, water supplies for the Delaware River Basin, 9/11 Responders, and Iran.
Posted late last night, after the tense matchup. - promoted by Rosi
Tonight was the big showdown. The first (and probably only) public debate between the diminutive incumbent, Congressman John Adler, and the leviathan ex-footballer Jon Runyan.
Former Bush communications director Nicole Wallace and Senator Menendez appeared on MSNBC to talk about the Iranian Elections and how to move forward given the current situation. They asked Menendez about CIA Director Leon Panetta's comments regarding Dick Cheney's motives and the Senator talked about what he though Panetta was trying to say. They also asked about the Governor's race and the Senator said that Corzine has taken on the tough issues and prepared the state for the economic situation. At the end of the day he thinks he'll be elected. Here is the segment:
"This campaign is a watershed in the history of Iran," Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst at Tehran University, said. "We've had debates before, but nothing like this. Ahmadinejad is accusing everybody of corruption - he is basically saying the same thing the counterrevolutionaries have been saying all along."
It's certainly nice to see that Iran may be moving into a new phase of evolution of democracy, but it would be even nicer if it didn't sound like New Jersey.
Senator Lautenberg had some interesting comments reported in the Jerusalem post regarding Israel and Iran and he didn't really mince words:
Interviewed during a short visit, Lautenberg - a consistent backer of Israel who is also a Democratic Party supporter of Obama - said, "Israel didn't ask us permission to drop bombs twice on Syrian nuclear facilities. I didn't hear America scolding Israel for what it did then. Hypothetically, if Israel were able to get rid of Iran's nuclear bomb-making capability, I'm sure that America would not send Israel a chastising e-mail message. We have to give Israel the courtesy of [allowing it to] make its own decisions."
He added that if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad failed in his bid for reelection on June 12, "we'll celebrate - unless there is someone worse in his place... Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would be a desperate act for Israel. I'm certainly not promoting it. But all free countries are endangered. The battle has to be fought together. Obama is a leader, and he will do what is necessary."
Lautenberg continued lauding Israel:
Israel is a "humane democratic society, a bastion of decency and freedom. It is a vital asset for America. It deserves not only respect but support," said Lautenberg, who has visited Israel 80 times since 1968. "It is a necessity for the US, a drop of sanity in the middle of so much madness."
The Senator's position is actually at odd's with our current policy toward Israel:
While US government policy has consistently been for Israel to return to the pre-Six Day War lines, Lautenberg said that Israel "won't return to the '67 borders. They are insufficient to permit Israel to function. I can't predict what the map will look like. As for the old settlements, Israel captured the territories when it was attacked, and it won the war. It was entitled to build defenses to promote its security. Older settlements are a reality. But the newer settlements and outposts are counterproductive and threatening in a way that almost prevents discussions with the Palestinians."
The Jerusalem Post will actually have a news feature on the Senator next week, so we may learn even more about his opinions.
I've been pretty busy lately with writing and editing my thesis (anyone who wants to know more about the wild world of fish hydrodynamics and/or has chronic insomnia, drop me a line). Finally, it's almost done. But because of that I've fallen behind a bit on writing about some topics that I've really wanted to talk about. Topping that list is the Senate primary. I was hoping the campaign would be more about issues, but that was probably never realistic in a short race like this. Still, I don't think that means we should focus on the negative campaigning. We can still talk about issues, and I was hoping to do more of that.
For me the major distinguishing issue between Lautenberg and Andrews was their support for the Iraq War. I know they both supported it at the start, but Andrews' unique position as one of the few charged with rounding up Democratic support and bipartisan cover for the war is particularly bothersome. He was the last of the state's Democratic delegation to turn against the war and call for a withdrawal. Almost exactly one year ago, I noticed what seemed to be a substantive change in Andrews' foreign policy stance. He had introduced legislation to block any funds authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan an attack on Iran. It seemed to me that he had learned a lesson from the way we got into a war with Iraq. You can read about our discussion here, but one aspect of his position still surprised me:
In hindsight, despite knowing that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, Congressman Andrews still believes that Iraq was a threat to the United States. I tried to understand what he thought distinguished Iraq from the multitude of other countries with similar capabilities who we do not choose to take out by military force. The distinction seemed subtle to me, but Andrews explained that it included the combination of the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons with the fact that Saddam had been uncooperative for so long. The difference between Iran and Iraq, he said, is that we are only now in the early stages of diplomacy with Iran, whereas we were much further along with Iraq.
Fast forward almost a year, and now Andrews is a candidate to be one of the 100 people who get to decide issues of war and peace. A few weeks back, Andrews was kind enough to again discuss foreign policy position in detail. In particular, I wanted to understand under which conditions he thinks the use of pre-emptive military force is appropriate.
It seems his position has evolved significantly - even from just one year ago. There are several conditions that would need to be satisfied. First, he said that simply the capacity to manufacture weapons is not a reason to use force - there would need to be at least active conduct. He also said that there would need to be serious international support. That means there wouldn't be military action absent UN Security Council approval and a broader expression of support from the international community. Presumably, this would mean we would not use force in a situation like we had with Iraq in 2002. He would employ an exhaustive diplomatic process to try to find a more effective solution to the problem. Finally, there would need be a very high burden of proof of an imminent threat. I think this all sounds reasonable. It's difficult to identify any way that I disagree with his assessment, which surprised me a bit.
We talked about his stance in the context of Iran. He supports Iran's nuclear energy program for domestic use and noted that low-enriched uranium (LEU) is not a threat to us. Since Iran has suspended their nuclear weapons program, the use of military force fails on that condition alone. He also pointed out that there is zero international support for military action and zero evidence that they can deliver weapons to the US. For each of these reasons, he opposes the use of military force against Iran.
I asked what if Iran were producing highly-enriched uranium (HEU) instead of LEU, and he said that still wouldn't pose an imminent threat, though he would favor a gasoline embargo to try to address the issue. Asked for an example of what would constitute a threat? Synthesizing HEU and handing it off to a terrorist organization.
In the context of North Korea, he said that they have HEU but no intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver a weapon to the US (though they may be able to produce them). Further, there is no international support for a pre-emptive military strike, and he says that diplomacy is working. On all counts, he would currently oppose the use of military force against North Korea, too.
So indulge me and let's pretend for this thread at least that the campaign is actually about issues. What do you think about Andrews' stance on the pre-emptive use of military force?
Can someone please explain to me the way a NJ senator's mind works? Last week, Menendez and Lautenberg voted in defense of MoveOn--a vote we all applauded; yesterday, they voted in favor of the Kyl/Lieberman amendment giving Bush support for taking on yet another Muslim country militarily. It's the last thing I would have expected from two legislators who voted against going to war in Iraq but given their vote, almost exactly a year ago, to deprive detainees of their habeas corpus rights, perhaps it was entirely predictable.
Is it too much to expect some consistency from our representatives in Congress, or better yet, some overarching vision that upholds our founding values and points the way to lasting peace and justice?
Reckless on the right, feckless on the left--our government in a nutshell.
Hot Rod Frelinghuysen has his foot in it this time - all the way up to his hip-pocket where he keeps his fat old wallet.
Hot Rod is one of thirty members of Congress who are getting rich by funding terrorism.
Total SA of France is another leading energy firm operating in Iran, Sudan and Syria. It has more than $3 billion in projects in these countries, according to the CSP, and has worked closely with Iran's state-owned National Iranian Oil Company.
Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) has more than $100,000 invested in Total.
There are only five countries on the State Department's list: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. Hot Rod manages to pick up three of them in one fell swoop!
What's the matter, Hot Rod? Investing in American businesses isn't good enough for you? You'd rather help sponsor terrorism with your investments? Hey, why not invest directly in Osama bin Laden's construction business, too? Why not just buy a box of bullets and mail them to our enemies so you can cut out the middle man?
Remember - "You're either with us or against us" and there is no way to define "with us" that leaves you sending money to terrorists who are killing American soldiers. It's even more reprehensible when you are trying to profit from sending money to terrorists to kill our soldiers.
A few days ago I learned that Congressman Rob Andrews had introduced legislation to block funds authorized for Iraq and Afghanistan from being used for planning an attack on Iran. This more cautious approach to foreign policy struck me as quite a contrast from five years ago when Andrews was leading the charge for invading Iraq.
I wanted to understand the logic behind this progression, and this evening I had the chance to talk to the Congressman and ask him about it directly. The very first thing Andrews pointed out was that he had in fact learned lessons from the way we went to war with Iraq. He stressed that the Congress failed -- and he failed -- to scrutinize the evidence before making such a critical decision. In his case, he acknowledged that he believed and repeated the administration's claims of Iraq possessing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. It was clear to me that he is very aware of what a mistake was made with Iraq. His proposed legislation was a deliberate attempt to not repeat the mistakes of the past -- to ensure a more careful, reasoned analysis.
Returning to the discussion of the Iraq invasion, he expressed disappointment in the inadequate planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. Before the invasion, Iraq had the potential capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons and was ruled by a strong authoritarian dictator. With a civil war raging, the potential for producing such weapons still exists thanks to the billions in oil revenue, but large swaths of Iraq are now under the control of tribal leaders who are not responsive to the weak central government. Any one of them could potentially decide to produce and distribute weapons to our enemies. We've made Iraq into a much more dangerous threat than it used to be due to a lack of planning.
In hindsight, despite knowing that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, Congressman Andrews still believes that Iraq was a threat to the United States. I tried to understand what he thought distinguished Iraq from the multitude of other countries with similar capabilities who we do not choose to take out by military force. The distinction seemed subtle to me, but Andrews explained that it included the combination of the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons with the fact that Saddam had been uncooperative for so long. The difference between Iran and Iraq, he said, is that we are only now in the early stages of diplomacy with Iran, whereas we were much further along with Iraq.
Andrews now believes that it is time to turn over Iraq to the Iraqis and bring our troops home. Last month, he voted for legislation in the House that included a timetable for withdrawing troops by March, 2008. It passed 218-202, but was later vetoed by the President. I'm still skeptical that the war can be brought to an end before Bush leaves office, but he's much more optimistic. Andrews believes that after Labor Day, there will be a veto-proof majority in favor of legislation like the one the House passed last month. He noted that what Republicans are saying at the podium in front of the cameras is different from what they're saying in the halls to their colleagues. While only two Republicans voted for the legislation last time, he thinks up to 60 will eventually flip thanks to the relentless pressure and fear for their political careers.
I'm glad I got this chance to dig deeper into Congressman Andrews' thought process and rationale. I was impressed that he acknowledged the mistakes made in the past and is taking steps to prevent repeating them. I don't agree with the way he arrived at his conclusion that despite the lack of WMD, Iraq posed a threat to us, but I guess that's what puts him on the more hawkish end of the spectrum -- the more cautious and slightly less trigger-happy hawkish end.
President 28% is threatening to veto the National Defense Authorization Act if Congress doesn't give him a blank check to attack Iran. Congressman Andrews has proposed an amendment to the legislation which would prevent funds allocated for Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to go to war with Iran.
Amendments on Iran: The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran?s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution?s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander in Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation?s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President? senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
Whine whine whine. Send the petulant baby the legislation and let him veto it. Then send it back again and again. Ceding the power to start another war to this president again is not an option any rational person should even consider.
It's so ridiculous this legislation even needs to be introduced, but it would be irresponsible to misunderestimate Mr. 28%. I'm encouraged to see Congressman Rob Andrews is on top of it:
His measure would prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran.
Andrews said in an interview that he has spoken to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) about his amendment to the pending defense authorization legislation.
"He will be supportive of this approach because it balances the assertion of our constitutional prerogative with the needs of the military to act in case of an emergency," Andrews said. "I think the chairman would agree. He and I share the view to strike that balance."
I think it's significant that Andrews is taking the lead. I'm dredging up this op-ed he wrote in 2002 for context:
At the request of President Bush, I have helped to form a small group of Members of Congress from both political parties. We share the conviction that our duty to protect the people of the United States requires us to remove the Iraqi government from power. We are working to write and pass a Resolution authorizing our nation to take any steps necessary to replace the Iraqi dictatorship with a government that will practice peace.
Iraq today possesses chemical weapons, such as sarin gas, and biological weapons, such as anthrax and smallpox virus. Some experts believe Iraq presently has small nuclear bombs that could fit into a suitcase.
He wasn't just advocating for a bad plan. He helped write it, and he was catastrophically wrong. While he thinks the war was mismanaged, I don't recall him ever saying whether he thinks he made a mistake (anyone know?). It's not a trivial distinction and it's important to know if he's at least learned from it. While this doesn't mean he's not still a hawk, the legislation suggests he's at least learned not to trust Bush's war instincts. It's hard to be too excited about that, but context is everything. He's come a long way.
The state could see $653 million less than expected in taxes this & next year, creating real problems for the proposed budget- instead of a surplus, we'd be $53 million in the red. The prediction is based on "unexpectedly weak" income tax payments for January. Treasurer Bradley Abelow told lawmakers that the state is nowhere near solving its budget problems, blaming in particular the $2.7 billion/year spent on debt service.
The Assembly State Government committee approved A3403, a bill which prohibits investment of State pension and annuity funds in foreign companies doing business in Iran. The bill is now in the Appropriations committee.
At our monthly delegate meeting on February 21, the Bergen County Central Trades and Labor Council unanimously voted to adopt the following letter opposing troop escalation in Iraq.
I see that my voice in Congress, Jim Saxton, has taken a break from his busy happy hour schedule to take on a seriously radical posture on a broad range of issues like minimum wages and Iran.
Let's take a look first at his thoughts on the income gap. From Rush Limbaugh's website. (subscription required):
"A lot has been said about income inequality, but the fact is that it hasn't changed much in recent years," Saxton said Thursday. "Congress should consider this fact before acting on the assumption that income inequality is surging."
That term 'surging' sure has a lot of currency in Washington these days. So in case you're keeping score on the surge meme, the thinking among most GOP pols in Washington is such: surge of income inequality? Phooey hooey. Surge of troops into Iraq? Go for it.
Saxton goes on, this time in Yogi Berra-esque fashion: "There is often good reason not to work, such as retirement or disability, but obviously households without earners will lack earnings. Income is not necessarily the best measure of economic well being."
(If you want to read the article with your own eyes without subscribing to Rush's site, click here.)
On Iran, Jim Saxton seems to be really peeved. He penned this op-ed slamming the UN and laying the philosophical groundwork for an attack on Iran. Saxton:
It amazes me that our Defense Department can spend billions of dollars in the fight against terrorism, but our diplomatic arm is unable to spend capital on making the United Nations confront states, like Iran, that support terrorism.
Keep in mind that the "diplomatic arm" he cites is none other than Condoleeza Inc.
So what to do about Iran, Jimbo?
First, it should create a missile defense architecture in the Gulf. This will have the twin benefit of weakening Iran's influence in the region and preventing Arab states-particularly Saudi Arabia-from becoming the next nuclear proliferators.
That sounds expensive. Maybe China will lend us the money for that. So what next?
Having the Gulf states exercise with the U.S. Navy will not only give them the technical know-how of completing maritime interdiction and proliferation prevention operations, but it will also shore up military to military relationships in the event Tehran blocks the Strait of Hormuz.
Is worth noting that the new Commander of Central Command in Iraq is a Navy man. Should the US go totally apeshit and attack Iran, it would be a naval incursion. So given that context, Saxton's bleating kinda sends chills up my spine.
But he's not done yet. Saxton:
I believe we must begin preparing to confront Iranian terrorism. While everyone wants diplomacy to work, it is clear that when it is the only instrument of national power being used, it works against our interests. Diplomatic success, rather, will only emerge when we pursue initiatives outside the context of diplomacy.
This last statement seemingly contradicts the earlier quote where Saxton was critical of the "diplomatic arm" confrontion threats (real and perceived) in the Middle East.
So given Jim Saxton's flurry of activity in Washington, one can only assume that his republican party is taking great pains to point out that the United States should foucus less on bridging the gap between rich and poor and more on a battle plan to invade Iran.
We all know that Republicans like to say that any Democrat who changes anything they've ever said is "flip-flopping". Of course, they also believe that "staying the course" until all of our soldiers are dead is the proper action in Iraq, too.
Here NJ-9 Congressman Steve Rothman demonstrates why it's so important to make sure Democrats hold a majority in both Houses after this year's elections. This should have been a full joint-session forum. Instead, it was pushed by Republicans into a backroom where they hoped it wouldn't be noticed.
On September 26th, U.S. Representative Steve Rothman (D-NJ) participated in a Congressional Forum examining the financial, military, and opportunity costs of the war in Iraq. Hosted by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), the event offered members a chance to question and hear from a diverse group of experts, including Gen. William Odom, who served as the head of the NSA under President Reagan and is currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Dr. Paul Pillar, who served in the CIA for 30 years. PoliticsTV captured the entire session on tape.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today delivered the keynote address at the YearlyKos Convention in Las Vegas, announcing a new initiative to ensure the Bush Administration speaks honestly and accurately to the American people about the challenge Iran poses. With the Bush administration stepping up its public and private diplomacy with Iran, Reid announced that Democrats would take new steps to hold senior Bush administration officials accountable for their statements on Iran, just like they have fought to hold them accountable for their misleading statements about the Iraq war...
Reid's legislation, the Iran Intelligence Oversight Act, would:
-- Require an updated national intelligence estimate on Iran with an unclassified summary available to inform debate by Congress and the American people
-- Require the President to report to Congress on his objectives regarding Iran and his strategy for achieving them
-- Require the Director of National Intelligence to show Congress that he has a process to review statements about Iran and other key challenges to our national security made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and key cabinet officials to ensure they are consistent with the consensus assessments of professional intelligence analysts.
"Next week, I will introduce new legislation to ensure that Americans are not misled again about a national security challenge. The bill will require intelligence community professionals to monitor and certify administration statements about the threat posed by Iran," Reid said of the legislation. "Every thing they say will have to be supported by facts. I have no doubt the White House won't like this requirement, but after what happened in Iraq, the American people deserve nothing less."
and asks for bloggers' help:
He also asked bloggers to take real action in the coming months.
First, he asked bloggers to continue to call Republicans out on their divisive political games, and to ensure what happened in 2004 will not happen in 2006.
Second, he asked them to help make it clear where Democrats stand on the key issues facing Americans and dispel the urban myth perpetuated by Republicans that Democrats don't stand for anything.
Reid said, "We don't have a bully-pulpit, but we do have you. We need you to be our megaphone ... and, we believe Iraq is this President's war, and it's time for him -- not the president who follows, as President Bush has suggested -- to find a way to turn Iraq over to Iraqis, so our troops can begin to come home and America can refocus its attention on destroying Al Qaeda and addressing the threats that have grown on the Bush Administration's watch."
Third, Reid asked the audience to never give up and to get out into their communities and ensure that Americans understand the need for a new direction in America.
Reid said: "If we're going to change the direction of this country, it requires the hard work of us all. I've talked tonight about the power you have online, but each of use has power off- line as well."
Last Monday we met one of with Ferguson's staff in DC, and it was the usual no answers and, I have to say, thin to nil understanding of the issues. She started off with Ferguson supports the war and is pleased with the progress we're making. Of course there’s more to do, but he’s generally pleased.
We brought up the Veteran's health care bill, H.R. 515, that would assure funding for the Veterans Health Care Act of 2005. Ferguson is not a co-sponsor. All of NJ's Democratic congressmen signed on, along with LoBiondo. Ferguson sits on the Subcommittee on Health (of the Energy and Commerce committee) where the bill is sitting. She said they hear from the VAW (she must have meant VFW) all the time about what legislation they want supported, and she would check with them whether H.R. 515 is something they want.
Last month the House passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, a companion bill of Santorum's Senate version, except that Santorum introduced the bill in 2005 after having removed language that said that as part of funding democratic groups and regime change in Iran, no money could be spent on military force. The House version, HR 282 (sec 402), keeps the restriction.
(1) IN GENERAL- The President is authorized to provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran . Such assistance may include the award of grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into Iran.
(2) LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE- In accordance with the rule of construction described in subsection (b) of section 401, none of the funds authorized under this section shall be used to support the use of force against Iran .
Does it mean anything if funds can be gotten from elsewhere? According to Hersh's New Yorker article on Iran a while back, we already have special operations there.
Menendez is a big supporter of regime change in Iran. He was an early co-sponsor of the bill, with Andrews, Garrett and Saxton.
According to Today's Sunbeam, the Salem County newspaper, Representative Frank LoBiondo, Republican of NJ02, visited a local high school and said some remarkable things about attacking Iraq and Iran.
