Were Senator Clinton's Answers Delayed?

Was it just me, or was there a delay between the end of a Chris Wallace question from the viewer's perspective and the start of Senator Clinton's response (Fox Views Sunday, 09/23/2007)? It looked like it might have been a small satellite transmission delay. It was not as long as a delay as we see on interviews from Iraq, but it was long enough to make it look, at times, like Senator Clinton was pausing before each answer. A couple of times I thought it made her look like she was being tentative with an answer.

I didn't notice the delay when Senator Clinton was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' 'This Week' even though I believe Senator Clinton was interviewed from the same location. It is quite possible the ABC interview was prerecorded and they had the delay edited out.

For all their proclamations of Fair and Balanced, I don't trust FOX.

Hillary Out-foxed FOX!

Senator Hillary Clinton was a guest on FOX Views Sunday this morning. Chris Wallace served up a knuckle-ball question to lead off the interview and sprinkled in a couple of screwballs and curves, but Senator Clinton didn't take a swing at any of the junk pitches thrown at her. In a hostile stadium and without the home field advantage, she hit a home run and took home a victory.

For those of you who don't like sports analogies, she refused to be goaded into confirming stereotypes and kept her message clear and focused. She consistently made the point that she was more interested in solutions than partisan distractions. She handled all the questions, serious and right-wing red meat, with ease. She looked prepared, intelligent, serious, reasonable and presidential. Even worse, for the Republicans, she looked like a winner.

By the way, as always, Chris Wallace told her at the end of the interview that she was always welcome on FOX Views Sunday. I doubt that she will be invited back for another one on one interview with Chris Wallace. She out-foxed FOX!

Time For Change! Time For Action!

I'm tired of hearing that the Democrats only want defeat in Iraq or that the Democrats have no plan. It has become clear that the President is the one who has given up. He doesn't want the failure to come on his watch so his plan is to stall and turn the mess over to someone else. There is hope for Iraq, but the new ideas are not going to come from this administration.

Senator Joe Biden has been talking about his Plan For Iraq for over a year. He has, with Senator Brownback and Senator Boxer, sponsored a bill to implement this plan. Please read his letter below and sign the petition. The vote on this measure is coming up next Tuesday and we need to put pressure on members of the House and Senate to get behind this approach.

The following is a letter from Senator Joe Biden sent to supporters.

As it becomes clear that President Bush plans to pass the Iraq war off to our next President, the debate over our policy there has reached a fevered pitch in Washington, DC and around the country.

Surge, Don't Surge, Timetables, Funding, Militias, Iran, Al Quaeda -- with all the lingo and spin being thrown around by everyone, it's easy to lose track of the most important factor that will determine what happens in Iraq.

That's the need for a political settlement in Iraq among Iraqis. Every Democrat and most Republicans agree there is no purely military way to stabilize Iraq -- there has to be a political settlement. That begs the question: what is that political settlement?

When you boil it all down, there are really only two choices in Iraq:

1. Continue to support, as President Bush has done, the idea that a strong central government will emerge in Iraq that will pull the country together, or

2. Realize that there is too much hatred and distrust for the various groups to reach consensus on the big issues, and begin to establish a federal system -- where each region of Iraq is given a great deal of control over its laws and government.President Bush, and many Democrats continue to cling to choice #1, hoping against hope that if we just keep enough troops in Iraq long enough, or threaten to leave one more time, we can build or force unity where none exists.

Five years into this war, what's left for us to say to the Iraqi government? "We really, really, REALLY mean it this time."

It's time to abandon this strategy. It's not working.

I have called for a loose, federal system with strong regional governments for more than a year now, as Iraq's constitution provides. It would give Iraq's people local control over their daily lives -- the police, education, jobs, government services, etc. And people from both sides of the political aisle are joining me to try to make this a reality.

Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and I introduced the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment, which calls for working with the Iraqis to transition the country into a federal system, as their Constitution allows and securing the support of the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors for this plan.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has called on Dems to unite in support for the measure and Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have joined us as co-sponsors. In an important display of bipartisanship, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) are also supporting the amendment.

MAJORITY LEADER REID HAS SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR 10 A.M. ON TUESDAY. So now, more than ever, we need your help.

There are 3 things you can do today to help us reach the only viable political solution in Iraq and begin to bring our troops home without leaving a bloodbath behind.

1. Click here to sign our petition in support of the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment. We will send your signatures to other members of the House and Senate to convince them to support the amendment.

2. Call the presidential candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd to urge them to vote against the failed Bush administration's policy of propping up a central government by supporting our Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.

Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451
Barack Obama: (202) 224-2854
Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823

3. Call the other presidential candidates, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, and tell them to support a federal system in Iraq by supporting the Senators behind the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.

Bill Richardson: (505) 828-2455
John Edwards: (919) 636-3131

As I said earlier, the choice is pretty stark: you either think the central government in Iraq can get the job done or you don't. It's time for our nation's leaders, especially the ones campaigning to be President, to take a stand.

I know where I stand.

Join me to convince others that this is the best way to end the war and avoid a total catastrophe when we leave. Your action today will help shape this debate. Please act and forward this message to others who care about what's going on in Iraq.

Thank you,

Joe Biden

09/25/2007 Update. It looks like the vote won't happen today which means there is still time to call and ask the candidates and your Senators to support the resolution.

09/26/2007 Update. The bill passed the Senate today 75-23. Maybe we can change the course in Iraq before January, 2009. Thank you, Joe Biden!

Note to Senate: Stand Up For The Troops!

Back in December, 2004, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said,

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

As has been demonstrated, this administration inherited a damn good military. What shape will the military be in when President Bush leaves office in January, 2009?

It is time to pass the Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment.

Ban Assault Weapons, Not Gay Marriages

Several years ago I heard an NRA spokesman downplaying the idea that allowing the sale of assault weapons in the United States could be a problem. As I recall, he claimed that an assault weapon had not been used to kill anyone in the U.S., or something close to that. I thought at the time that it sounded like an absurd claim.

This week we have a report from the Associated Press that assault weapons are now becoming the weapon of choice for gangs in Miami (Assault-Weapon Attacks on Rise in Miami Area, Where Police Officer Was Slain, by Matt Sedensky).

The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others
this week came from something increasingly common on this city's streets: a
high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members
and violent criminals.

Will the United States become like Iraq, where you have to have an assault weapon in your house to feel safe? How long before builders are advertising houses with bullet proof glass and walls so people don't have to worry about stray high powered bullets?

We consider ourselves a civilized country. But does a civilized country allow weapons designed for war to be sold legally for as little as $200?

There is something very wrong in this country. We have people who will only vote for politicians who support a ban on gay marriage, but don't seem to be the least upset that we allow our country to be filled with guns meant only for war!

Return On Success - Stay On Failure

The Conventional Wisdom Watch in this week's Newsweek (September 24, 2007) nailed the new Bush policy:

Return On Success - Stay On Failure

Actually, this doesn't sound like a new policy. It is just a better explanation of their policies from day one and explains why President Bush has been saying for several years that getting out of Iraq would be a task for the next president. The man knows his limitations.

President Bush The Actor

Fred Thompson has entered the presidential race. He joins another famous actor, Ronald Reagan, in his pursuit of the presidency. Maybe he will make a good president, but we have an actor in the White House now and it is not working out very well.

The first excerpt in Slate (read excerpts here) from Robert Draper's new book, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, makes it even more clear what motivates President Bush's policy in Iraq. To pursue anything but clear success in Iraq would be to dishonor the men and women who have fought there. Especially those who were wounded or died there.

Here is an excerpt from the book,

He viewed it as the commander in chief's obligation to visit with those who had suffered loss as a result of his decisions. "Sometimes it's not pleasant, and I understand that," Bush said as he leaned back from his vanquished bowl of ice cream. "And they have every right to be unpleasant. Sometimes there are disagreements. ... Yeah, it's hard. And to see the wounded, the head injuries. But that's part of the presidency, to immerse yourself in their emotions. Because they look at the president and they—most of them—say, 'My son or daughter did what they wanted to do.' The interesting thing is, the healer gets healed. I appreciate it."

And later,

For the first and only time in that seventy-minute monologue-dominated conversation, Bush fell silent for several seconds. "Yeah, well," he finally said. "When you're responsible for putting a kid in harm's way, you better understand that if that kid thinks you're making a decision based on polls—or something other than what you think is right, or wrong, based upon principles—then you're letting that kid down. And you're creating conditions for doubt. And you can't give a kid a gun and have him doubt whether or not the president thinks it's right, and have him doubt whether or not he's gonna be supportive in all ways. And you can't learn that until you're the guy sitting behind the desk."

To admit doubt or misgivings would be telling these men and women that their sacrifices were for nothing. He could never look a wounded warrior in the eye again. He could never face the tears of a grieving parent, spouse or child.

No, George Bush will not let polls change his direction. He won't logically reflect on what might be best for the country at this point. He can't he even consider what might be best for the troops who haven't yet been wounder or killed. His plan is to stay loyal to the troops who have made sacrifices and insist that the cause is worth their effort as long as he is president. Someone else will have dishonor their sacrifices. He has to play the part of a President loyal to his troops. A script he wrote himself.

Stay and Play

With the revelations from the new book Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper (read excerpts at Slate) we have learned that President Bush's Iraq slogan has morphed again.

He has gone from "Stay the Course" to "Stay and Pray" and now to "Stay and Play".

Senator Biden's Plan For Iraq

I heard a Republican strategist on TV whining that Democrats complain about President Bush, but she hadn't heard any of the Democratic candidates put forth their own plan to deal with Iraq. That's probably because she never listens to anything except Fox Views. Or maybe she said she hadn't heard any Democratic plan to WIN in Iraq. Which would be even more absurd because it is clear that President Bush's plan is to pass Iraq off to the next president.

Below is a copy of an email sent by Senator Biden to supporters. In it is a link to the Plan For Iraq that he and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, proposed in May of 2006.

Republicans may disagree with Senator Biden and Mr. Gelb, but they should stop saying no one besides President Bush has a plan. (By the way, I heard a pundit say that a version of the Biden plan is being quietly talked about in the White House as plan CWDWDN, the fall back if the President is forced to do something.)

Text of Senator Biden's September, 4, 2007, email:

Yesterday we learned that President Bush went to Iraq to survey the situation on the ground first hand. This is good news. The President needs to see what the rest of us have seen and know. While his plan for a surge in Iraq has had limited and temporary military success, it has not brought about the kind of political reconciliation the President and his Cabinet had hoped for.

It is my sincere hope that the President went to Iraq, not with an outcome in mind, but with his eyes open looking to learn the facts on the ground. And the facts are: there is no chance that Iraq can be governed by a strong central government no matter how many troops we have there.

We'll be hearing a lot about the "surge" over the next several weeks, but we all must remember its original purpose: to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis.

That will not happen.

Absent an occupation which we cannot sustain or the return of a dictator which we cannot support, Iraq cannot be governed from the center at this point in its history.

There is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services, and no prospect it will build that trust and capacity any time soon.

I've been making that case for over a year. And so have more and more experts, in and out of government.

Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden made this very point in a private meeting with the Iraq Study Group. He said "the inability of the [central] government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," he said. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government... that cannot function."

Two weeks ago, our entire intelligence community came to the same conclusion. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and predicted that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to twelve months."

As everyone knows, I have offered a plan (PlanForIraq.com) that contains the possibility, not the guarantee, of promoting stability in Iraq as we leave. It's based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center.

Instead, we have to give its warring factions breathing room in their own regions, with control over the fabric of their daily lives - police, education, jobs, marriage, and religion.

A limited central government would be in charge of truly common concerns, including protecting Iraq's borders and distributing oil revenues.

The good news is: the federal system at the heart of my plan is already in Iraq's constitution and in its laws.

We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. It is past time to make Iraq's the world's problem, not just our own.

Thank you,

Joe Biden

OPAWTY? - 3

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

I watched NOVA on PBS last night, "Dimming The Sun". They described some of the scientific research that proves that airborne particles (and the cloud formations that they facilitate) significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that strikes the surface of the earth. This reduction in sunlight has a measurable cooling effect on the earth.

While this reduction in sun light and the cooling effect might seem to be a beneficial counter to global warming, it also causes problems. Scientists believe it may have contributed to some of the devastating droughts in Africa and, of course, air pollution is a serious health concern.

The most sobering observations were that global dimming has masked the effects of global warming and that as we continue to make progress decreasing air pollution, we will greatly increase the rate of global warming. The current models that attempt to project the rate of global warming do not take into account the full effects of global dimming. We may have much less time to bring global warming under control. Many decades less time. There is a point at which the effects of global warming begin to cascade and there will be nothing we can do to reverse it. Let me say it again, there is a point where reversing global warming will be completely out of our control. That time may be closer than we think.

It has taken decades to convince people that global warming is real. How long would it take to convince people we should stop trying to prevent air pollution until global warming is under control?

I'm sure there are people who will argue that global dimming is just as unreal as global warming, but they've been arguing against global warming for years and so far no good, hard evidence has appeared to suggest they are correct. Global warming is a big problem that will take massive and, probably, painful solutions.

One of the solutions to global warming should be population reduction. Reducing the world's population by itself will not reverse global warming fast enough, but it should be a another tool.

Doesn't common sense tell us that more people on the planet will only make our environmental problems worse? At some point there will be more people on earth than the planet can support. When that time comes we can reduce population several ways: nature can make drastic reductions (disease, famine, loss of habitat), governments can force family planning or we can make voluntary reductions. Since the first two have already occurred in some places, shouldn't we be proactive and start voluntary reductions?

By the way, if we don't bring global warming under control soon, population reduction will occur.

OPAWTY? - 2

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

In the July, 2007, issue of Popular Science is an article entitled Skyscraper Farm about a plan to build skyscrapers to house highly automated hydroponic farms. A farm might be 30 stories tall and feed 50,000 people. Microbiologist Dickson Despommier of Columbia University suggests skyscraper farms as a solution to several problems.

Al Gore has suggested that we grow more trees in response to global warming. Since 40.5 percent of the earth is being used for agriculture, we could move agriculture to skyscrapers and use the land formerly planted in crops for trees.

With the world's population projected to grow from 6 billion to 9 billion, we will need to find additional land to grow food, land we need planted in trees to counter global warming. Skyscraper farms allow a lot of food to be grown on a small foot print of land.

In addition, these hydroponic farms could use and recycle waste water and sewage (after pretreatment) to not only grow the plants, but also to produce clean water by capturing the moisture that evaporates from the leaves. Clean water is another resource that is becoming more scarce. Presumably, skyscraper factories would use less water because water loss due to evaporation would be minimized.

This all sounds fine, except this solution (and problems it tries to solve) are in response to another problem. Over-population. Shouldn't we be talking about ways to minimize population growth and, maybe, over the long term, decreasing the worlds population to a level that is enviornmentlly and economically sustainable without such drastic solutions?

Presidential Primary Reform

Once again states are jockeying to move their presidential primaries to the front of the line. You can't blame them. An early primary means money and political clout, but at the rate we are going we may end up with the first presidential primary occurring more than a year before the actual election.

It is time for common sense to intervene. I recommend the American Plan from FairVote. It seems to be the best of several I've heard about. They make the point that determining the nominee early hurts both parties

• A short campaign does not fully vet nominees or issues.
• Writing a check has become more important than casting a vote. Since 1980, 13 of the 14 presidential nominees--in both parties--were those who raised the most money by December 31 of the previous year.
• There are 4 months of dead air until the national convention.
  

Their solution is to spread the process out over about 20 weeks and front load the process with smaller states to make it easier and cheaper for candidates to participate.

The American Plan:The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or The American Plan (sometimes known as the California Plan), is designed to begin with contests in small-population states, where candidates do not need tens of millions of dollars in order to compete. A wide field of presidential hopefuls will be competitive in the early going. A "minor candidate's" surprise successes in the early rounds, based more on the merit of the message than on massive amounts of money, will tend to attract money from larger numbers of small contributors for the campaign to spend in later rounds of primaries.

Thus there should be more longevity of candidacy, and more credible challengers to the "front-runners." However, as the campaign proceeds, the aggregate value of contested states becomes successively larger, requiring the expenditure of larger amounts of money in order to campaign effectively. A gradual weeding-out process occurs, as less-successful candidates drop out of the race.

The goal is for the process to produce a clear winner in the end, but only after all voices have had a chance to be heard.

While there are several proposals for reform, this one has a lot to recommend. Let us hope that the political parties and states come to their senses and decide on a national plan.

The Dinar Stops Here

President Bush will no doubt write a book when he leaves office. I have a suggestion for the title,

The Dinar Stops Here

Over-Populated. Are We There Yet?

On the U.S. Census Bureau web site there is a paper written in 2000 that attempts to project the population of the United States through the year 2100. As you can imagine, this is a difficult task, but they do it in a well described, scientific manner. They have to make a large number of estimates about birth rates, mortality rates and migration rates. They ended up with three series of projections based on these estimates using a low, medium (middle) and high rate of population growth (see paper here).

The lowest projection has the population of the U.S. rising to about 313 million by 2050 and then falling to about 282 million by 2100. The middle series projects the population of the United States to continue to grow and reach about 571 million by 2100. The highest series (which I believe is based on a high immigration rate) has the population reaching about 1.18 BILLION by 2100.

Who knows what the actual population of the United States will be in 2100, but what these projections do show is that given the right (or wrong) circumstances, the population of the United States could increase dramatically over the coming decades.

What do you think would be the affects of a population roughly four times the current population of about 302 million people? Would a U.S. population of 1.18 billion be better than a population of 282 million people?

While few of us will see the year 2100, our actions will help determine the future population of the United States. Shouldn't we review the facts and determine what we believe would be the ideal population of the United States and then work to achieve that goal?

Does Newt Have Lazy Eyes?

I watched former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday this morning. Is it just me or does he have a serious problem making eye contact? I noticed this the last time I saw him on Fox News Sunday. He looks like he is making eye contact with Chris Wallace occasionally, but most of the time he is starting off to the right or his eyes are just wandering.

In fairness, a television interviewer is often looking down at notes preparing for the next question, so the interviewee has to look at a person who is not looking at them, but the audience doesn't see this.

Newt needs to work on this. The impression he gives is a politician who has problem looking people straight in the eye.

Fox Views

Having watched Fox News Sunday again today, I suggest the program's name be changed to Fox Views Sunday.

Actually, I like Fox Views for the network name also and have a suggestion for a new slogan. Clearly "Fair and Balanced" is just part of a ruse. How about (with apologies to Admiral Farragut)

"Damn the facts! Full speed to the right!".

Joe Biden Can Do it

As you think about which candidate is best qualified to be our next president, ask yourself this question.

If you could choose one of the candidates to walk into the Oval Office tomorrow and start getting us out of Iraq in a way that protects our interests and our troops, who would you choose?

In my opinion, there is no question. Joe Biden.

CNN Democratic Debate

The CNN Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate tonight was another chance for Democrats to get pumped about the 2008 election. This strong field keeps looking better. Senator Clinton gave another strong, polished, controlled performance that confirms her front runner status, but for solid, straight-forward, no nonsense, reasoned ideas, you can't beat Senator Joe Biden. It amazes me that he is still a second tier candidate.

I'm not sure what it will take for him to receive the attention he deserves. My hope is that he can hang on until he gets his break.

Democrats, Compromise and Move Forward

OK, the Democrats with their all night session have paid their political dues to the far left. They've tried to force a rapid withdrawal from Iraq on the far left's terms. Now it is time to cut the political crap and work with Republicans to move us forward.

On the talk shows today it was suggested that the Democrats were more interested in making Republicans pay than trying to figure out ways, with Republican help, to start getting us out of Iraq. I don't want to hear that some Democrats are afraid any compromise will give Republicans political cover. Americans are dieing in Iraq for a failed policy and as far as I'm concerned nobody has political cover until we have a plan and we don't have a hundred bodies coming home every month. Republicans lost power because they put partisan politics ahead of the national interest. You would have thought the Democrats would understand they will be held to the same standard.

We should have some goals we can agree on.

• The national interest of the United States should guide all solutions.
• We need to change course so American casualties are significantly reduced, ASARP.
• We should try to move as many troops as possible either out of Iraq or to the sidelines in a reasonable time frame.
• We should maximize our ability to take out al Quida.
• We should do what we reasonably can to help Iraq move politically to a situation that minimizes the violence when we leave.

If sixty or more Senators can agree on the Baker/Hamilton plan, I believe that is Senator Salazar's plan, let's have a vote. If we can't get that to pass, try the Warner/Lugar proposal. It is clear that President Bush will not change course until he has no options. With Republican support, Democrats can keep passing bills. Each time President Bush refuses to listen to bi-partisan suggestions it will make it easier to pass a tougher bill until the Senate has the backbone to pass a bill the President cannot ignore.

I heard an estimate this morning that as many as 250,000 Iraqis might be killed in the turmoil after we leave. We should do what we can to minimize that number. Maybe it is time to STRONGLY suggest our own political solution. For example, we could suggest that Iraq be divided, as Senator Joe Biden and others have suggested. We would draw the lines, since the Iraqis could never do it, and then give people whatever protection we can for three months to relocate before we withdraw. That idea may be ridiculous, but is it any worse than the current plan which seems to be surge until next April when either we have an Iraq that can take care of itself or our military breaks? As far as I can tell the track we are on now ends at the edge of a cliff next April and no one has a plan to stop the train or switch to another track.

It is now time for the Democrats to lead. No more partisan politics. The discussions should no longer include references to Democrats or Republicans. Senators and Representative need to work together as patriots to develop a plan that replaces the current failing policies in Iraq.

Force Them All To Leave

When the comprehensive immigration proposal was debated, the question was always asked, what are you going to do with the 12-20 million illegals who are here already? To most people, the thought of rounding up and deporting that many people was nonsense. Most are productive members of society. Many have been here for over a decade.

I heard the end of an NPR interview the other day that confirmed what many of us suspected, but I had not heard articulated.

The plan is to seal the borders, ratchet up enforcement of existing laws and, over time, force the 12-20 million people to go home. Some will be caught and deported. The rest will be harassed and prevented from working. Eventually, everyone here illegally will be forced out. The speaker, I didn't catch who it was, admitted that this may take 10, 20 or 30 years.

Maybe this was being said and I didn't hear it. Maybe they were using codes I just didn't understand.

I don't support allowing a lot of new immigrants, especially unskilled labor, for reasons I've previously stated. But at what point does strict enforcement of the law just become mean-spirited vindictiveness?