The Lautenberg campaign issued a statement today blasting Rob Andrews for telling the Philadelphia Inquirer that "Frank Lautenberg has the same record I do."
"The record is he was asked the question, and he said he would have voted for it," Andrews said, referring to Lautenberg's 2002 campaign against Republican Doug Forrester.
No objective analysis of the facts could possibly arrive at the conclusion that their records are the same. Andrews helped draft and sell the resolution supporting military force against Iraq. Lautenberg wasn't in office at the time, though he did state his support for the resolution. Andrews voted in favor of continued funding for the war until 2005, but Lautenberg voted against it as early as October, 2003.
Andrews told the Inquirer that his opposition to the war "began in the summer of 2004 when he spoke to the Gloucester County Chamber of Commerce," but the Lautenberg campaign points out that as late as November, 2005, Andrews told Gannet News that "[The Iraq War] removed a risk the country could not afford to bear. The fact of the matter is Saddam had the capability to produce biological and chemical weapons. Waiting would not have worked."
Lautenberg rightly disagreed with Andrews' characterization.
Lautenberg said yesterday that there are "enormous differences" between their records on the war.
As a candidate in 2002 without access to the intelligence that members of Congress have, Lautenberg said, "I saw the stories in the news and thought it might be a good idea to get rid of Saddam."
Once inside the Senate in 2003, "I voted against funding, and Rob Andrews led the parade for this. He helped write the legislation. He was the one who sent the troops into Iraq. He was the one who supported the president's initiatives."
It's true that he has voted against the war every chance he's had, but Lautenberg's support for the war wasn't limited to his statements while campaigning in November, 2002. Having access to whatever information Members of Congress have access to didn't lead him to immediately change his mind.
Certainly, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to continue with his -- with the president's request for volunteering the information that they had there. Instead, we trotted out the Army, the Navy, the Marines and everybody to make sure that we shut down the possibility that one day, one day that Saddam Hussein and Iraq might come and threaten our people and our safety. And I approved of the president's action in this case.
Undoubtedly, Senator Lautenberg has a much stronger, longer and vocal record of opposing this misguided war, while Congressman Andrews was an architect of the legislation and helped lend "bipartisan" credibility to the effort. Lautenberg's campaign is right to object that their records are nowhere close to "the same", but both campaigns are going to develop a credibility problem if they don't stick to the facts and treat the voters with a little more respect.
Rep Rob Andrews questioned Ambassador Ryan Crocker this morning on the lack of progress in Iraq:
"Perhaps the most important thing, which is the money...the hydrocarbon law has not been passed. I'm not meaning to say here that doing all those things since September is a mark of abject failure, but my goodness....not doing them since April of 2003 sure looks that way." [...]
"It is now five years...why should the American people wait five more minutes for that to happen?"
msnbc.com: BREAKING NEWS: 2 U.S. soldiers killed, 17 people hurt in attack on Baghdad's Green Zone [link]
In July, 2007, this is what Rep Frank LoBiondo said about progress in Iraq:
As the interim report to Congress reflects, the Iraqi government is failing to meet reasonable benchmarks and expectations to govern its own country. I am extremely disturbed and increasingly impatient that the political will of the Iraqi Prime Minister and his government does not match the military will and unwavering dedication of our servicemen and women. If the Iraqi government continues to fail to make measurable progress, our military involvement and any future mission in Iraq must be carefully re-examined.
It's been almost two Friedman Units (FU) since LoBiondo made those remarks (strangely, the original link to them is no longer working). Can he point to "measurable progress" made by the Iraqi government? How many FU's longer is LoBiondo willing to let our troops continue to die in Iraq before "re-examining" our military involvement in Iraq?
"I think that the report of the UN weapons inspectors was surreal. We've got a situation here where we know that there's anthrax and small pox in this country. We know that the country is the size of California. We know that there is a 13 year history of the Iraqis concealing the presence of these weapons.
One year to the day before Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN., he spoke to a standing-room-only crowd at Riverside Church in NYC. The speech was called Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.
Here's some of the text of that speech, with new pictures that give it fresh life and relevance. Forty-one years after the King assassination, we're still waist deep in the big muddy, only this time it's a sandtrap. It matters who got us there, and who was slow to figure out what a big mistake it was. That's what's on my mind as I mull over a choice between Rob Andrews and Frank Lautenberg.
Fighters for peace and justice, rejoice. It is you this magnificent man still stands beside. Here's the full text of the speech for those remembering Martin Luther King today, on the 40th anniversary of the assassination. h/t Chip Robinson of Morris DFA/PDA.
Lautenberg's campaign is already going after his [Andrews'] early support of the war in Iraq. Like many Democrats, Lautenberg also voted to authorize the action, but Andrews was an especially vocal supporter among Democrats. Like Lautenberg, he now wants to withdraw troops.
Lautenberg was not in the Senate when the vote authorizing military force against Iraq took place, so he could not have voted for it. Although he didn't cast a vote for it, he did express strong support for the resolution while he was running for Senate in 2002.
Lautenberg's campaign is already going after his early support of the war in Iraq. Like many Democrats, Lautenberg initially supported the action, but Andrews was an especially vocal supporter among Democrats. Like Lautenberg, he now wants to withdraw troops.
I'm very pleased to see that the Princeton High School students' protest of their detention for the 5th Anniv Iraq War walkout made the Trenton Tiimes:
A handful of students yesterday skipped their assigned detentions and, instead, went to the district's special board meeting to voice their objection to being reprimanded.
"Not all education can take place in the classroom," said Princeton sophomore Sarita Rosenstock. "It's important for students to exercise these rights, especially because many of us can't even vote. We need to have our own methods of participation."
The VP of the school board and another member echoed the 'take the repercussions' view, expressed in the comments of an earlier post:
Board Vice President Alan Hegedus told the students to accept their detentions with pride... JoAnn Cunningham said she remembers the heat of protest in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum and youths were speaking out against discrimination.
"Detention?" Cunningham said. "Hey, we went to jail for protesting."
What's she saying here? Is she trying to push them to civil disobedience with the bravado argument?
On March 19th, about 100 Princeton High School students held an anti-war walkout to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of the war in Iraq. The students missed two periods of class during the hour-long rally and speak-out and for that, Principal Gary Snyder gave them each two days of detention.
Today, an expected 200-250 students will protest the punishment with a teach-in and march to the Princeton School Board meeting at 4pm where they plan to participate in the public comment period.
"This detention is unfair, because we were taking a chance to voice our opinions and educate ourselves, which we are not given the opportunity to adequately do so in school," said Aislinn Bauer, a Princeton High School sophomore and one of the organizers of the walkout. "We're turning this punishment into something productive."
"What I do not understand is how we were able to miss three periods to see Terrance Simien and the Zydeco Experience perform and throw Mardi Gras beads at us, which had little to no educational value," said Russell Cavallaro, a Princeton High School sophomore. "This walkout actually had educational value. Students were educated on the causes of the war, why it should never have happened, and had a chance to offer their respects to the fallen soldiers."
Yep, Mardi Gras beads are cool in school, but those darned kids have to be kept in their place and trained to be good little mindless automatons.
The walkout started with a rally on the College Ave Campus and then a march along College Ave to George St, with a pause in front of Old Queens, where the students announced their intention to start a divestment campaign. The university endowment is invested in Halliburton and other military contractors. I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the coming months.
The Star Ledger has photos here, and there will be more press coverage in the morning. The students' press release is on Michael Moore's must read.
And here are some photos taken by Paul Sauers.
Sitting down for 5 minutes at the intersection of George & Albany Sts, a minute for each year of the war:
There were some words with some pro-war guys in front of the Marines Recruiting Station (technically called the "Marines officers program"), which they were bizarrely insisting wasn't a recruiting station. I know from earlier reporting on protests we've held there, that from that very office they rented the helicopters that were brought onto campus offering free helicopter rides to let students know they could be pilots in the Marines. So there's definitely attempts at recruiting from that office.
The march proceeded to Douglass Campus on George St. and then the marchers were ready to go out onto Rte 18:
Today's Ledger's article by Wayne Woolley talks about the petition to de-federalize the New Jersey National Guard and the move in Vermont's legislature instigated by a Democratic Rep. Mike Fisher:
Fisher introduced a measure in committee this January that argues President Bush's authority to call Vermont's troops to war in Iraq expired long ago and they should be sent home.
and other states:
Since Fisher unveiled his bill, similar legislation has been introduced in Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Lawmakers in four other states -- Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire and Wisconsin -- are drafting similar measures
as well as the Govs Assn's attempt to keep control of their Guards for domestic emergencies:
The National Governors Association fought the Bush administration for nearly two years to win a repeal of a law last month that allowed a president to call up the National Guard for a domestic disturbance without consulting the state's governor. And governors have lamented that overseas National Guard deployments drain manpower and equipment needed to respond to a domestic crisis.
But Ben Manski, the executive director of Liberty Tree in Madison, Wis., says legislative moves in individual State Houses have the greatest potential to change the way the National Guard is used...
At a recent hearing on the bill, Harvard law professor David Barron said authorization for the war continues as long as Congress votes to pay for it.
which is another reason we need Congress to stop funding the war. The next $105 supplemental will be up probably in the next month.
And Corzine's response:
"I think it is undermining of the basic purpose of the National Guard, which is to protect local and state elements," Corzine said.
But at a public hearing last month, Corzine said he would not formally oppose the upcoming deployment because any state that disregards a Pentagon call-up would lose out on millions of federal dollars.
But Vermont's Rep. Fisher rejects that argument:
I'm blown away that someone would suggest that if we ask that the law to be followed that we would lose funding for our Guard
NJ is getting $20 million in new equipment, but whatever goes to Iraq will not come back. Earlier reporting suggested that our quartermaster is aggressively fighting to keep at least what we need here.
One was arrested in front of the IRS with the War Resister's League (in the background):
Four were arrested for blocking the intersection between the Capitol and the House Cannon building as part of the March of the Dead. Here's an earlier shot of the march:
Five were part of a blockade in front of the Petroleum Institute:
Here's Ian, a Rutgers Against the War activist (to the right behind the two women) after his glasses had been broken by an elbow or something to his face and, in case they weren't completely broken, stomped on:
Another RAW member shouting it out:
A few of us were at Tuesday'sCodePink Take Back the Constitution Vigil:
And two of us were at DC's St. Patrick's Day Parade with Code Pink:
I might post more on the meetings on the Hill with senatorial and congressional staffers later... or not.
Summit, NJ -On Saturday March 15th the Summit Interfaith Peace Coalition and Pax Christi Summit along with area residents and peace organizations will gather on the Village Green in Summit for an all day observance of the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War. The theme is Chaos or Community? Taken from a speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967 about the Vietnam war entitled "Where do we go from here: Chaos or Community?", the event will focus on the cost to local communities in terms of shrinking resources for social services such as education and healthcare along with the sacrifices of the military and their families.
A new analysis estimates that the Iraq war is costing much more than we might think:
In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.
Congressman Saxton poo-pooed the results:
When Stiglitz testified on Feb. 28 before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the ranking Republican, New Jersey's Rep. Jim Saxton, complained that such projections are too imprecise to help determine relative costs and benefits of the Iraq war.
Asked about the estimate today, Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino had a different take:
Q: What are the administration's latest cost estimates on the war? Are you familiar with the Stiglitz article that came out over the weekend...$12 billion a month he's now estimating.
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to dispute his estimates. [...]
Normally it would be good to be on the opposite side of the reality plane from Bush, but even a broken clock is right sometimes. Saxton is paying for a war on credit and not even acknowledging the true costs. Oh, and he's sending the bill to your grandkids, with interest.
"As someone who voted against the war in the first place, I'll tell you that there's only one candidate in this race for the United States presidency who can end this war in Iraq, and that's Hillary Clinton," he said.
That's a doozy. Only someone with experience driving us into a ditch can get us out of it? I have a hard time believing that Menendez believes this. Ahhh politics is fun.
Yesterday Dems in the House passed another supplemental funding bill for the war, to the tune of $50b. If it manages to pass the Senate, Bush promises to veto it, because it dares to ask for a few things that should have been asked for years ago:
Not later than January 15, 2008 and every 90 days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2008, the Secretary of Defense shall set forth in a report to the Congress a comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures for progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.
... (c) The report shall include, at a minimum, the following specific provisions:
(1) With respect to stability and security in Iraq, the following:
(A) Key measures of political stability, including the important political milestones that must be achieved over the next several years.
(B) The primary indicators of a stable security environment in Iraq, such as number of engagements per day, numbers of trained Iraqi forces, trends relating to numbers and types of ethnic and religious-based hostile encounters, and progress made in the transition to Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC).
(C) An assessment of the estimated strength of the insurgency in Iraq and the extent to which it is composed of non-Iraqi fighters.
(D) A description of all militias operating in Iraq, including the number, size, equipment strength, military effectiveness, sources of support, legal status, and efforts to disarm or reintegrate each militia.
(E) Key indicators of economic activity that should be considered the most important for determining the prospects of stability in Iraq, including--
(i) unemployment levels;
(ii) electricity, water, and oil production rates; and
(iii) hunger and poverty levels.
(F) The criteria the Administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing United States forces from Iraq.
Holt, Pallone and Rothman, along with 67 other House members, signed a letter back in July, which by October had 90 signers telling Bush:
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
I guess it's all in the name? Referring to the Supplemental spending bill, the last line is:
This Act may be cited as the `Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008'.
I don't see how it gets anywhere near living up to its title.
This is part 3 in a series of speeches Senator Bob Menendez has given comparing what the $455 billion spent in Iraq so far could have achieved domestically for our transportation system:
When the numbers are that outrageously high, we all have to constantly be asking ourselves a simple question: "What's going to make a bigger difference in our lives? Using the money to fix the major problems we have facing the nation every day or fighting a war that has achieved nothing for any of us?
The House Budget Committee held a hearing today to receive testimony regarding the CBO's estimate that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may total $2.4 trillion. Only one Republican member of the committee attended. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) noted their absence:
Doggett: "I assume, by Mr. [Paul] Ryan (R-WI) being here, that every member of this panel, including every Republican member on that side of the aisle where all the seats are vacant, received notice about this hearing about the cost of war in Iraq?"
Spratt: "I'm sure they did."
Doggett: "And when was this notice of the hearing sent out?"
Spratt: "Seven days ago, as required by the rules."
Garrett has time to send them to war, but not enough time to hear what it will cost. I can't wait to hear him talk about how he is committed to fiscal responsibility, if by that he means not bothering to care enough to sit there and listen to the burden he has placed on the future generations of this country while he attacks people that don't sign onto the blank check once again.
This is Senator Menendez's second in a series of speeches on how the money spent on Iraq could be used towards domestic priorities. Yesterday, he contrasted the costs of the Iraq War against insuring children.
It boils down to this: "Every single day in Iraq we spend roughly the amount of money it would take to get tens of thousands of New Jersey children coverage for a full year. I wish [President Bush] had to look every child in the eye to tell them that."
Senator Menendez addressed the Senate today, reminding them that one week ago "we marked the fifth anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the resolution authorizing the War in Iraq." In the first of a series of speeches discussing what the spending on the Iraq War could provide in terms of domestic priorities, he discusses how the war funding could have made us safer at home:
The Administration's budget for the failed War in Iraq is 13 times this year's budget for Homeland Security. Do they really think the Iraq War is 13 times more important to America than the Department of Homeland Security's mission?
When it comes to our money, the Administrations' motto really is, "We're spending it over there so we don't spend it here."
[Update: has anyone called and heard back? It's not just to find out, but to tell them we're out here and believe in defunding the war!]
Today 87 United States Representatives signed a letter to President Bush informing him that they will no longer vote for supplemental funding for the Iraq War except for withdrawal.
... You are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment.
In July there were only 70 signators to the letter, meaning we gained 17 new members of Congress unwilling to fund this ridiculous war.
Reps. Rush Holt, Donald Payne, Frank Pallone and Steve Rothman signed both letters.
Reps. Albio Sires, Bill Pascrell, Rob Andrews are notable in their absence, indicating they are willing to give another check to Bush so we can lose another six or seven hundred Americans to an unnecessary, poorly conceived and idiotically executed war.
I'd ask if they could read a poll, but that would be insulting and imply that they all support the President and his little Middle Eastern exercise in nation building.
Of course, the fact that they haven't signed the letter kind of implies that all by itself.
.gif)
