"Democrats Unable to Bring Troops Home" That's the risible headline that the Associated Press attaches to its of the Democrats' so-far-unsuccessful effort to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.
If you think about it it isn't easy to attempt to surrender butfail. The best analogy I can think of is the first Gulf War whengroups of Saddam's soldiers were seen following unmanned drones withtheir hands in the air in a futile effort to be taken prisoner. Littledid we know then that just a few years later a majority in Congresswould try to surrender to al Qaeda at the very moment when our troopsare crushing them. At least Saddam's soldiers had an excuse: they werelosing.
Those first two sentences are unintentionally revealing. Bush's surge strategy was designed to "salvage his misadventure." I doubt very much if that was the way Bush saw it. He was trying to make sure that the U. S wins. But that
wins or loses. That "violence has declined" is a concession. What it refers to is the fact that U. S and Iraqi civilian deaths have been dramatically reduced. "Al Qaeda is said to be weaker" refers to the fact that the Iraqi tribes have turned against Al Qaeda and that organization has been all but eradicated in Iraq. I guess that is weaker. Having achieved this we are now supposed to throw in the towel because the Times isn't satisfied with political progress in the Iraqi government? With a much improved security situation does it really make sense not to give this thing some more time?
Yet non-germane amendments are common in Congress especially in the Senate. I suspect Sen. Johnson will stick to his position until the next time it suits his party to attach a non-germane amendment to a particular bill. For example perhaps Sen. Johnson will of attaching their vetoed Labor-HHS spending bill to defense spending in an attempt to force Bush to sign into law spending he disagrees with in order to get the defense spending he wants. After all how is Labor-HHS spending germane to defense spending? Should these not each be judged on individual merits? But. I do not object to the Democrat's tactic. This sort of thing happens all the time in fights between Congress and the President especially when there is divided government. But I am not the one complaining about non-germaneness.
As I have been building my jazz library. I am sure I have acquired 20 or 30 versions of that number. Jazz is really about melody. No form of music has taken the melody more seriously nor more frequently insulted it. Singing runs no risk of the latter. The contrast between Fitzgerald's perfectly smooth voice and Armstrong's sandpapered singing is delicious. Scroll down and you can listen to some Trane. Life is good.
Picketing at funerals is what has earned them their fifteen minutes of fame and now an $11 million judgment against them in a court of law. The Phelpsians (not to be confused with Jim Phelps team leader for Mission Impossible) have made a habit of protesting outside the funerals of American soldiers who were killed in Iraq. They carried signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags."
Ajury agreed. On Wednesday the church and three of its leaders _ FredPhelps and his two daughters. Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis _were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflictemotional distress. Jurors awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatorydamages and $8 million in punitive damages.
Albert Snyder sued theTopeka. Kan. church after a protest last year at the funeral of hisson. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq. He claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
Mr. Snyder for whom I have nothing but sympathy is unlikely to see much of that money. In the first place the whole crawlin' lot of Phelpsians have about a million between them including the Church property their homes and their bank accounts. In the second place. I am sure they are right that the judgment will be overturned.
has a series of posts on the case that amount to a legal brief. Go there if you want the itemized argument against the judgment. I will pound more directly on the nail.
First let me point out that the Phelpsians are the dullest of blades in the Church kitchen and they could do with a good scrubbing. A reasonable person of Biblical faith can believe that God disapproves of homosexual acts. Only a full-tilt moron can believe that the Biblical God hates homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. Moreover to bring their case to the site of grieving families who have nothing to do with America's policies on homosexuality suggests a worm-infested consciousness.
That said freedom of speech and assembly are not subject to qualification because the blathering assembly is offensive to someone. The Phelpsians kept their signs 1000 feet away from the funeral itself. Mr. Snyder admits that he did not see the signs during the funeral but only in the media on the day after. Was a thousand feet enough? State and local governments are allowed to define what is a public forum for purposes of free speech (Main Street a public park) and what is not (private property public hospital grounds etc.). The circle of privacy can certainly be drawn around a funeral location and can be extended beyond a thousand feet if that is judged reasonable.
What government can't do is to exclude from that zone only speech that is offensive or outrageous or causes emotional distress. That was the basis of the judgment in this case and it clearly amounts to content regulation. The Phelpsians were slapped with an $11 million fine not because they said what they said where they said it but because what they said in that place was hurtful. That is content regulation and the First Amendment does not allow it.
to say print and think annoying things. If the judgment in this case is allowed to become precedent it could easily be used against to exact punitive judgments against anti-abortion protesters or anti-war protesters. Heck. I could sue Greenpeace or my friend and neighbor Jim Seeber for the bumper stickers on his Prius. The way to deal with the Phelpsians of this world is to arrest them if they step across the line between public forums and private venues. Lawsuits of this kind are a threat to everyone's freedom.
Lauck is clearly willing to endure howls of outrage from fellow academics by purporting to write an unbiased book when he obviously favors one of the candidates. Lauck will not endear himself to historians by quoting conservative historian Leo Ribuffo that the “tendency toward glib moralizing from a left liberal or radical perspective has affected American historical writing for the worse.”
Nevertheless. Lauck pulls off his audacious task by producing a book that is generally even-handed meticulously researched and historically illuminating.
For my part. I’m willing to let historians fight among themselves over Lauck’s book while I savor his engrossing account of the hard-fought Daschle-Thune face-off which The New York Times called “the other big race of 2004” after the presidential election.
Lauck accurately places the Daschle-Thune battle in a historical context of the post-Reagan era in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and in the midst of the greatest projection of American military power since Vietnam.
“The 2004 South Dakota Senate race was fought over the scarred battlefields left by the 1960s and the Reagan revolution with Daschle defending a remnant of the old order while Thune carried the banner of Reaganism,” he writes.
His detailed description of the two candidates’ personal and political background and their parallel struggles to achieve power makes for fascinating reading. Daschle who became majority leader in 2001 when Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP and then minority leader again when Republicans regained the majority in January 2002 was handicapped by his obligation to his Senate conference. Lauck writes.
Here are a couple reports filled with good news from Iraq. In the reporter states that some Marines prefer to patrol without body armor (although they are not yet allowed to). That is an indication of how safe they feel. Michael Yon an independent journalist attended by US soldiers and both Christian and Muslim Iraqis. The mass was full of the usual stuff: prayers communion girls pulling each others' hair.
Most Reverend Shlemon Warduni. Auxiliary Bishop of the St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Diocese for Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraqofficiated standing directly beneath the dome under the Chaldean cross. Speaking in both Arabic and English. Bishop Warduni thanked thoseAmerican soldiers sitting in the pews for their sacrifices. Again andagain throughout the service he thanked the Americans.
LTC Stephen Michael at St John’s. LTC Michael told me today thatwhen al Qaeda came to Dora they began harassing Christians first,charging them “rent.” It was the local Muslims according to LTCMichael who first came to him for help to protect the Christians inhis area. That’s right. LTC Michael told me more than once that theMuslims reached out to him to protect the Christians from al Qaeda. Real Muslims here are quick to say that al Qaeda members are not trueMuslims. From charging “rent,” al Qaeda’s harassment escalated tokilling Christians and also Muslims. Untold thousands of Christiansand Muslims fled Baghdad in the wake of the darkness of civil war. Mostof the Christians are gone now; having fled to Syria. Jordan orNorthern Iraq.
Today. Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslimswho want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. TheChristians who might see these photos likely will recognize theirfriends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other peoplewill take the homes of their Christian neighbors and that theChristians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today inforce and they showed their faces and they said. “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spreadthe word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news.“Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”
"I am focused on 2008 and so I want to seekre-election to the House of Representatives that's my intent," HersethSandlin a Democrat said in response to a question about her ambitionsfor the state's top job. She made the comments on a telephoneconference call with reporters.
"I reallyhaven't looked much beyond that but I don't want to close off anyopportunities to serve the state in 2010 and beyond," she said.
Related article:
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2007/week46/#entry-41677622
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
