Justin's Thursday Political News 9.20.07

Posted by Justin Baragona on 09.20.2007

The Senate is trying to get a timeline and an amendment for troop withdrawal passed (again), nobody likes the war or Bush (still), and the Taser hear 'round the world!

Welcome to another edition of Justin's Thursday Political News. Yes, that is right, I am contributing two news columns this week. As you may have noticed, I posted a column on Monday. As you may have also noticed, I did not post a column last Thursday even though my vacation was over by then. So, therefore, you get the pleasure of reading me twice in one week, after not having any of me for two weeks. I am so generous to you readers.



Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had this to say in regards to a new bill setting definite timelines for troop withdrawal in Iraq:


"For more than two weeks, we've been trying to compromise. And, as of right now, we don't have enough Republican votes."



The bill that Reid is referring to is basically the same one that was proposed in July by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) that would set timelines on when American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. When that bill was proposed, 52 senators voted for it, including 4 Republicans. Of course, 60 votes would be needed to overrule a Republican filibuster and 67 votes would be needed to override a Presidential veto. It looks like that bill will be put up for debate this week, as the Democrats have realized that they are not getting the kind of compromises from Republicans that they are looking for.

This is not the only bill regarding the Iraq War that is passing through the Senate. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) is trying to build up support for an amendment that would limit the time US troops serve overseas. However, Webb and the Democrats supporting the amendment were served a major blow in Wednesday when Sen. John Warner (R-VA) stated that he would not be able to back it, even though he did support it the last time it came up for a vote, when it received 56 votes. Warner had this to say when explaining why he could now not support it: "I agree with the principles [in the amendment], but I regret to say I've been convinced by those in the professional uniform that they cannot do it and do it in a way that wouldn't invoke further unfairness to other soldiers now serving in Iraq." Webb hopes that Warner will change his mind, saying he remained "hopeful" that he would still vote for it.

The President has basically already stated that he will veto Webb's amendment should it cross his desk. It looks like it will have a tough time getting the 60 votes necessary to get through the Senate, especially with Warner dropping his support for it. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has proposed that the amendment is unconstitutional as it limits the President's power to operate as commander-in-chief. Reid countered back that McCain needs to read the amendment a little closer. "We have a responsibility, by virtue of the Constitution, to work with the military, to set policy for the military," he said. "Anyone that suggests that the Webb amendment is unconstitutional either is not reading the law, or no one's explained it to them very well." I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of the Webb amendment and don't want this to be the Democrats' attempt at bringing the troops back home. I don't like the idea of changing the Constitution as a response to a particular event, this being the Iraq War. The amendment will put restrictions on the military that future presidents and military leaders my find too restrictive, especially if we find ourselves in a real dilemma with an actual threat. I'm for imposing timelines regarding this actual war, and getting our troops out of there, but I'm not exactly enamored with an actual amendment.




Below is what Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) said after Bush made his speech about the progress made in Iraq since the troop surge:


"We have now set the bar so low, that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation -- to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006 -- is considered a success, and it's not."


Polls were taken after the President made his big, primetime speech about Iraq and Gen. Patreaus testified before Congress and neither of these events changed the minds of the American people in regards to Iraq or how they feel about the President. According to CBS News, 26 percent approved of the way the President has handled the war prior the speech and testimony. Afterwards, 25 percent approved. As to whether or not we did the right thing by invading Iraq, prior to the speech 41 percent felt it was the right thing to do, while after the speech 39 percent felt we were justified in attacking Iraq. One question that the poll asked was if we think the troop buildup has made the situation in Iraq better. Prior to, 35 percent felt it had. After the speech, 31 percent said yes. There was also a Pew poll that came out that showed that 54 percent of Americans want the troops home now. The same poll back in July showed the exact same results. The President's job approval rating, according to the Pew poll, is 29 percent. The only change the Pew poll showed was that the President has energized his base a bit more, as his rating among Republicans went up 15 percent.

I don't think the results of these two polls should be surprising to anyone. While perhaps the President really thought that he was going to garner support by throwing the general in front of Congress to do a political sell-job and then tag team it with an address to the nation where he announced that a whole 5,000 troops would be home by Christmas and maybe another 30,000 by this time next year, I don't think anyone else thought the nation's opinion on the war was going to change. We are going to stay in Iraq until the President leaves office, plain and simple. A democrat will win office in 2008 based purely on the promise that he/she will bring the troops home. It appears that the Republicans are either too stupid or too stubborn to push an anti-war candidate, so they will get their collective asses handed to them. Then, and only then, will we see a possible change within the GOP as a reassessment will be in order for what the party truly stands for. I don't know, maybe. However, I could just be talking out of my ass. We'll just wait and see.





Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) had this to say after a campus forum where a young man was Tasered after police were removing him from the auditorium:


"I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."



Andrew Meyer, 21, who attends the university that John Kerry was speaking at in Gainesville, FL. Is the young man uttered the now infamous line, "Don't tase me, bro!" right before campus police used the Taser on him. Apparently, Meyer had spent an inordinate amount of time speaking to and asking Sen. Kerry various questions. Security asked him to stop, but he kept going until his mike was cutoff. At that point, he didn't want to leave so security then tried to make him leave. At the time, Kerry was on stage stating that he wanted to answer his questions. However, the officers already had Meyer restrained and were telling him to stop resisting. He started yelling and struggling and then finally the Taser was used. They then hauled him off as he repeatedly screamed, "What did I do?" Meyer was then taking to jail where he was booked with resisting arrest with violence, disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions. He was released on Tuesday on his own recognizance.

Now, I'm sure that the police were well out of hand with how they reacted and the amount of force they used. Right now, all the officers that were involved have been put on leave until after an investigation has been done. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that some, if not all, are fired in the aftermath of all of this. Having said all of that, this kid is an attention grabbing idiot who obviously wanted to get some kind of exposure or make some kind of an impression. It has already been discovered that he has made videos of himself basically being a jackass in public, looking to get a reaction. If you are at a question and answer session, and you are tying up the speaker's time with annoying questions and/or statements that are solely for the purpose of bringing attention to yourself, then you are going to be asked to move it along to the next person. I believe that this kid wanted to create a disturbance of some kind. Did he want to be Tasered? Probably not. But he did want some exposure and attention from this.



That is going to do it for me this week. If you are looking for a good column to read, other than mine of course, then you can't go wrong checking out my friend Ray . I'll be back next Thursday with more news in the realm of politics.