| Page 5 of 5 < |
Deference Prevails Over Hostility
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"It's unfortunate and telling that he chose to use his veto prerogative, for the first time, to obstruct potentially life-saving medical research."
Reality Bites
Reality is finally driving a wedge in the hitherto unshakeable support by congressional Republicans for Bush's every utterance about the war Iraq.
Jonathan Weisman and Anushka Asthana write in The Washington Post: "Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution. . . .
"Rank-and file Republicans who once adamantly backed the administration on the war are moving to a two-stage new message, according to some lawmakers. First, Republicans are making it clear to constituents they do not agree with every decision the president has made on Iraq. Then they boil the argument down to two choices: staying and fighting or conceding defeat to a vicious enemy.
"The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war."
Case in point: Mark Fischenich wrote in the Mankato (Minn.) Free Press yesterday that Minnesota Republican "Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.
"Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad."
And just how is that reality?
Frank James blogs for the Chicago Tribune: "Well, the situation in Iraq is either looking up or the American effort to produce a viable democracy is going to hell in a handbasket, depending on whom you'd rather believe.
"The Republican National Committee emailed an upbeat list of what it calls ' Iraq Facts .' . . . It's essentially a collection of newspaper clips of items meant to show progress in Iraq, things like oil output going up in the south Iraq and small swaths of Iraq being turned over by U.S. forces to their Iraqi security counterparts.
"But then there is the competing view of Anthony Cordesman , the no-nonsense analyst with Center for Strategic and International Studies. Today he released an analysis of what he views as a clearly deteriorating situation in Iraq."
And from Iraq itself, Borzou Daragahi wrote in the Los Angeles Times yesterday: "Retaliatory massacres by gunmen and bombers linked to rival Muslim sects have left more than 130 people dead across Iraq over the last two days, the latest casualties of what some politicians now are calling an undeclared civil war. . . .
"Since the beginning of May, attacks by Sunni Arab and Shiite Muslims have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a United Nations study and Iraqi police reports. . . .
"U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed."
In Tuesday's New York Times, Edward Wong and Dexter Filkins showed how U.S. soldiers may be getting caught in the middle of that civil war: "As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces."
Cheney Rears His Head?
Jonathan Weisman and Michael Abramowitz write in The Washington Post: "Top White House officials took a harder line yesterday on a new system to try terrorism suspects, telling Republican senators that President Bush will soon formally propose a tribunal structure with only minor changes from the military commissions that were ruled unconstitutional last month."
Our Allies Against Us
Robin Wright and Colum Lynch write in The Washington Post: "The United States faces growing tensions with allies over its support of Israel's military campaign to cripple Hezbollah, amid calls for a cease-fire to help with the mounting humanitarian crisis.
"European allies are particularly alarmed about the disproportionately high civilian death toll in Lebanon. They are also concerned that the U.S. position will increase tensions between the Islamic world and the West by fueling militants, playing into the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and adding to the problems of the U.S.-led coalition force in Iraq."
William Douglas and John Walcott write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The White House's inaction on the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israeli-Palestinian issues . . . is consistent with its belief that the goal of American Mideast policy shouldn't be keeping the peace but transforming the region by destabilizing, defeating or overthrowing groups and regimes that practice or support terrorism and are hostile to Israel.
" 'That's the big idea that was behind the invasion of Iraq, it's the reason they won't talk to Syria or Iran or Hamas, and now it's the reason they're giving the Israelis time and space to try to destroy Hezbollah,' said a veteran U.S. diplomat who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because 'if you print my name, it'll be the end of my career.'
"The trouble with the policy is 'it won't work,' said the official. That view was shared by a half-dozen other current and former foreign policy and intelligence officials, all of whom requested anonymity for the same reason."
White House Salary List
My very own 2006 White House staff and salary list is finally available, ranked by salary , sorted in alphabetical order ; or sorted by title . You can also compare it to my 2005 , 2004 and 2003 lists to see who's come and gone, and how folks at the top of the scale have gotten raises year after year -- while the bottom of the scale remains solidly stuck at $30,000 a year.
Much was made last week of Stuart G. Baker's job title: Director of Lessons Learned. But it turns out his job is neither some sort of namby-pamby new agey thing, nor a stealth White House inspector general position telling everyone what they're doing wrong.
Instead, the title is an outgrowth of the White House's " Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned " report. And Baker, a detailee from the Department of Homeland Security who worked on that report, is now charged with coordinating the response to the report's recommendations.
Poll Watch
The Wall Street Journal reports: "President Bush's job-approval ratings have changed little from June, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll.
"Of 1,002 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 34% said Mr. Bush is doing an 'excellent or pretty good' job as president, up a tick from 33% in June. By comparison, 65% of Americans said Mr. Bush is doing an 'only fair or poor' job, down from 67% last month."
Here's a chart of the downward slide over time.



