(CNN) — From the politics/strange bedfellows file: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from Republican and former Nixon Watergate figure William D. Ruckelshaus.
Ruckelshaus was serving as deputy attorney general in 1973 when he made history as part of the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. He and his boss, Attorney General Elliot Richardson, were fired after they refused Nixon’s order to dismiss the independent counsel investigating the Watergate break-ins.
The former Nixon FBI director and secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to help Obama defeat Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in the May 6 primary in Ruckelshaus’ homestate of Indiana. The state has been a longtime Republican stronghold in presidential politics.
“Senator Obama’s ability to attract not only Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents, makes him uniquely qualified to build the broad coalitions needed to address our nation’s challenges,” said Ruckelshaus in a statement.
Obama leads Clinton in Indiana 40 percent to 35 percent, with a 25 percent of respondents saying they’re unsure who they’ll vote for, according to a Los Angeles Times poll conducted April 10-14. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The Obama campaign said it was embracing the endorsement because of Ruckelshaus’ "understanding of the importance of transparency,” which he gained during the tumultuous years of the Nixon administration, said Obama spokesman Kevin Griffis. Ruckelshaus remains a known and respected name in Indiana, which may draw independent voters to Obama, Griffis said.
The Huffington Post | April 16, 2008 10:17 PM
Reflecting what seemed to be the main consensus of the night - that ABC botched this debate, big time - Charlie Gibson tells the crowd there will be one more, superfluous commercial break of the night and is subsequently jeered.
"OH..." he declares, hands raised in defense. "The crowd is turning on me, the crowd is turning on me."
Off camera, observers let out their frustrations. Watch it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html
Visitors to ABC's site weren't much kinder. Here's a sampling on page 1:
...This is AWFUL. Thank goodness for Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. He does a better job of interviewing and asking relevant questions of his guests in 5 minutes than these 2 yahoos have in more than an hour. ABC should be ashamed. George should be ashamed. Charlie should be ashamed. This isn't a debate. This is a hit job....Asinine questions - abysmal debate. Fire these silly moderators NOW. They insult the intelligence of the American people....I haven't watched ABC "news" in a few years. I see I haven't been missing much! MORE THAN half the debate turned over to Bittergate, Rev Wright, the Weathermen, Tuzla, FLAG LAPEL PINS? Most of the televised debates I've seen this campaign season have been lame, but this one takes the prize. Either you guys are morons or you think that we are. Either way, I'm glad to have seen the last of you. Really, really bad.No winners in this debate, but a definite loser: ABC "NEWS"...This is the WORST debate I have ever watched. Never in my life have I been more disenchanted with the news media as a whole, especially a news organization such as ABC that I believed to have some sense of purpose to bring substantive information and perspective to the American people. Americans are tired of the snipping between the candidates and the lack of discussion about what each candidate will do to help the country. ABC News should be ashamed for presenting such a failure of a debate....Are you kidding me? "We don't have much time left. Let's have a MINUTE to talk about gas?" Charlie and George, you need a crash course on the distinction between "issues" and an "agendas." Hint: The candidates have the former; you have the latter....ABC News . . you should be ashamed of this debate. Where did you get these questions?? Where are the ISSUES. We have heard enough about Rev Wright and what Hillary did or didn't do in Bosnia. Let's hear about issues that matter such as the cost of Health Care, the war in Iraq, the Energy Crisi, the Crisis in Our Schools, and THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!...Geoirge and Charlie= narcissistic elite "journalists" trying to score a rating point, but asking questions that would yield a "F" in middle school journalism. This debate may be used for years in journalism classes, on how to not run a debate. Disney-who owns ABC- get better cartoon characters to run a debate. Elmer Fudd would do much better....Has ABC News noticed that your so called "debate" has been universally panned? Charles Gibson is a pandering person more fit for the National Enquirer than a responsible news program. Stephanopoulis is barely better. I am so disappointed but not surprised.
U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indianapolis, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president this morning, according to a former aide to Carson’s late grandmother.Chad Chitwood, who previously worked for the late Rep. Julia Carson and now is spokesman for State Rep. David Orentlicher, confirmed the endorsement.The Obama campaign declined to comment, but has scheduled a morning conference call with reporters today to announce what it said would be a major endorsement.“I have heard that, on the record, from sources both in D. C and Indiana,” Chitwood said.The endorsement, the first that a current Hoosier member of the U.S. House has made in the presidential race, will be a coup for Obama.Obama, D-Ill., is competing against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., for the 72 pledged delegates at stake in Indiana’s May 6 primary election, but they also are competing for the support of super delegates, and Carson, as a member of Congress, holds one of those key slots.Carson also is in the May 6 primary election, facing several challengers — including Orentlicher — for the Democratic nomination to represent the 7th Congressional District, which includes most of Marion County. He recently won a special election to fill the remainder of the term of his late grandmother, who died in December.
“He added that Obama's unexpected endorsement yesterday by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney ‘carries a hell of a lot more weight’ than the blowup over his comments about small-town residents. Rep. David E. Price, an uncommitted Democrat from North Carolina, which holds its primary May 6, said his frustrations are with Clinton, for the potential damage she has inflicted. ‘Senator Obama could have chosen better words, but it seems to me that he's stating the obvious,’ Price said. ‘People are feeling a great deal of economic stress, anxiety, and there is a certain amount of anger out there… I think it's most unfortunate that opponents simply pounce, particularly opponents in his own party.’”
This report is from the Scotsman, the same paper that published Samatha Power's "monster" comments.
It is a credible paper, but as a foreign source, it probably deserves an extra level of scrutiny.
Note that all sources in the article are anonymous.
EDIT: It's also not clear that the Scotsman's sources believe this would happen before Pennsylvania. In fact, the implication more seems to be that this is how the endgame might play out after Pennsylvania.
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president. Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats."They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president. Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."
An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.
[...]
But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.
But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.
Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.
Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.
A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.
A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.
The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.
Yet some in the Democratic elite are wary of moving too soon. Polls show that 30% of Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain if she fails to become the nominee. To close off Clinton's bid before millions have had the chance to vote risks causing the very split that officials are desperate to avoid.But a loss to Obama, or even a single-digit victory, in Pennsylvania will seal Clinton's fate. Pennsylvania is the last big state left in the race, and the last chance for Clinton to claw back Obama's delegate lead. "If he (Obama] wins (Pennsylvania] flat out, I think the big foot will come down," a source said.Anything less than a resounding victory by her will probably see the race choked off ahead of the final primaries on June 3.
Yet some in the Democratic elite are wary of moving too soon. Polls show that 30% of Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain if she fails to become the nominee. To close off Clinton's bid before millions have had the chance to vote risks causing the very split that officials are desperate to avoid.
But a loss to Obama, or even a single-digit victory, in Pennsylvania will seal Clinton's fate. Pennsylvania is the last big state left in the race, and the last chance for Clinton to claw back Obama's delegate lead. "If he (Obama] wins (Pennsylvania] flat out, I think the big foot will come down," a source said.
Anything less than a resounding victory by her will probably see the race choked off ahead of the final primaries on June 3.
There's an interesting nugget of political and financial information -- or, rather, missing information -- buried deep within the Hillary and Bill Clinton tax papers finally released the other day.
The struggling Clinton Democratic presidential campaign seemed to gloss over this part when it released eight years of tax returns on Friday.
Our veteran blogging colleague Thomas Edsall, the political editor over at Huffington Post, points out that Bill Clinton has received something on the order of about $15 million in payments from local billionaire Ron Burkle since 2002.
The Los Angeles-based mogul has long been tied to the Clintons and has been one of the most prolific fundraisers for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign this past year.
In a press statement accompanying the release of the Clinton couple's tax returns, the campaign summarized where much of the couples' money came from over the last eight years -- a Senate salary, a presidential pension, some book royalties and a whopping sum of $51.9 million in speaking fees earned by President Clinton. And who wouldn't love to talk for that kind of money?
But glaringly missing from the summary, Edsall points out, is....
any mention of the $15 million in fees paid to the Clintons by Burkle's Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund since 2002. Forbes magazine has listed Burkle as the 91st richest American in 2007.
The Clintons' ties to Burkle have drawn scrutiny for some time. Last fall, the Wall Street Journal reported one of the former president's aides had helped arrange a partnership between Burkle and a young Italian businessman named Raffaello Follieri.
That partnership later fell apart and Burkle sued Follieri for misusing funds to keep up a lavish lifestyle of fancy meals and rides on jets for him and his girlfriend, actress Anne Hathaway.
In his Huffington Post column, Edsall asks two important questions. Why did the campaign fail to mention that the former president received a good chunk of the family's income from the L.A. tycoon?
And, more importantly, what exactly do you suppose the former governor and former president could do for Burkle that would be worth that kind of very serious money that now rests in the Clinton family financial pot?
--Aamer Madhani
Aamer Madhani writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau.
Instead, he told a Senate panel that he expects that Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in the war, will be able to make an assessment of further drawdowns by mid-September.
Last fall, the secretary said he held out hope that troop levels in Iraq could continue to drop through this year. While he would not put a specific number troop levels, he agreed at the time that a consistent reduction would have left about 10 brigades—or roughly 100,000 troops—by the end of the year.
When asked by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if that remains his hope, Gates responded: "No sir."
However, Gates used a more optimistic tone in this testimony than Petraeus and even President Bush by describing plans to halt troop withdrawals this summer as a "brief pause." Petraeus and Bush have rejected that description.
Gates said he decided to use the term anyway in congressional testimony because he expects that Petraeus will be able to make an assessment come September.
"If the conditions continue to improve in Iraq, as we have seen them improve over the last 14 or 15 months, than we believe the circumstances are in place for him to be able to recommend continuing drawdowns," Gates said. "But I think while we have used different words, that certainly is my understanding and my expectation."
Petraeus has recommended, and Bush has agreed, to complete the pullout of 20,000 troops by July but also to halt further reductions after that. Petraeus has said he needs a 45-day period of evaluation, to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.
The new GI Bill, not supported by John McCain, would:
Pay the full cost of college plus three years of living expenses during school. The current GI Bill pays about two-thirds the cost of college, sponsors said.
Boost health care spending for veterans by $3.2 billion a year and offer better mental health care.
Allow veterans to keep both their disability pay and their full pensions.
Increase survivor benefits for spouses and children.
Protect National Guard and Reserve troops who face a pay cut when they are called up.
Many families of guardsmen "have actually lost their homes because of the cut in pay from serving abroad," Salazar said.
The bill also seeks to increase the size of the military to "adequate" levels, adding perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 new troops. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., made increasing troop levels a key part of his failed presidential bid last year.
"Our military is now overextended, and our troops are having to spend extended stays in Iraq," said Salazar, who served in the Army from 1973 to 1976.
At the press conference, Salazar read the names of some of the troops from Colorado killed in action in Iraq, including Marine Cpl. Randy Rosacker, Sgt. 1st Class Randall Rehn, Capt. Russell Rippetoe and Lance Corporal Thomas Slocum.
"The (new) GI Bill increases survivor benefits for those who have no father and no breadwinner," Salazar said.
The American Legion, which drafted the original GI Bill in 1944, supports the new version. Supporters of the new legislation credited the 1944 measure as one of the most important laws Congress ever passed.
Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the current generation of veterans could rival the World War II generation, which returned home from the war to build the American middle class.
"It's my prediction that if we treat them right through this GI Bill - do more than put a bumper sticker on your SUV - that they, too, will become another ‘Greatest Generation,’ ” Skelton said.
April 9, 2008—
Retired Gen. Colin Powell insists he hasn't yet decided who he'll back in the 2008 presidential election.
"I'm looking at all three candidates," Powell said in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer for Thursday's "Good Morning America" on ABC, "I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet."
Powell, who served as President Bush's first Secretary of State, is a Republican but that apparently is not enough to sway him toward Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the GOP's presumptive nominee.
WATCH DIANE SAWYER'S FULL INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL COLIN POWELL ON THURSDAY'S "GOOD MORNING AMERICA"
McCain has staked much of his presidential prospects on the success of the surge strategy in Iraq, a subject of great debate in Washington this week as Gen. David Petraeus took his case to Capitol Hill.
"The United States Armed Forces are very, very stretched. It appears that after the surge is over, we're going to go down to 140,000 troops in Iraq. That's 10,000 more than we had before the surge," Powell observed, reacting to the testimony Petraeus delivered over two days.
"There is something of a continued surge there with that extra 10,000. And based on what Gen. Petraeus has said -- he wants to let the surge troops go by July and then take 45 days to see what it looks like, and then begin a process of assessment. Well, that tells me that we know what the administration strategy is going to be through the end of the term of the administration. And that is, we're going to maintain a very significant presence," Powell said.
Powell, who served as chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff during the administration of President George H.W. Bush and the first Gulf War, expressed concern over the burden an extended stay in Iraq would put on the troops and the country's military forces.
"It's going to be far more than the 100,000 that Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates was hoping for. It's going to be like 130,000 or 140,000. That is an extremely difficult burden for the United States Army, the United States Marine Corp, to keep up," Powell told "Good Morning America."
Powell also expressed reservations about the two-front combat in which the United States finds itself: surging in Iraq while trying to maintain control in Afghanistan.
"We have responsibilities in Afghanistan. And in some ways, Afghanistan is more difficult than Iraq. You have the tribal problems. You had drug lords running around ... and al Qaeda and the Taliban are making a resurgence," Powell said.
Sawyer pressed Powell on the differences between the presidential contenders on the critical issue of Iraq.
"I'll tell you what they're all going to face -- whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 -- they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan and our other deployments," Powell said.
In a recent speech, McCain cast America's commitment to Iraq as a "moral responsibility", arguing that a genocidal civil war could ensue if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon.
"It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal," McCain told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in California.
Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have a starkly different take.
"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan," Clinton said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on Tuesday.
At that same hearing, Obama insisted, "The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now, not six months from now."
But Powell told Sawyer a withdrawal might not be that simple, no matter who is president next year.
"(The president) will have to continue to draw down at some pace. None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying, 'We're out of here, turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving,'" he said. "They will have a situation before them."
On another hot topic, Powell rejected the idea of boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China this summer.
"That's a judgment the president will have to make. I would not boycott the opening ceremony," Powell told Sawyer.
First reported on the Drudge Report, Sen. Clinton has called for a boycott of the opening ceremonies but not the Olympics overall, specifically citing China's reaction to recent protests in Tibet and inaction in Darfur.
"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership," Clinton said in a written statement.
"These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."
After initially resisting making a direct call for a boycott, Obama, in a written statement, said, "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies."
Set to begin on Aug. 8, 2008, the Beijing Olympics have been surrounded by controversy ever since the International Olympic Committee awarded China the Games.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" co-anchor Robin Roberts, urged Bush to consider a boycott.
"I think boycotting the opening ceremony, which really gives respect to the Chinese government, is something that should be kept on the table," Pelosi, D-Calif., said. "I think the president might want to rethink this later, depending on what other heads of state do."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced she will not attend the Olympic Games. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today that he will not attend the opening ceremonies in August.
Despite the increasing calls for a boycott of the Olympic opening ceremony, Gen. Powell insists that such a move will not accomplish its objective.
"We always are aware and have been aware of Chinese human rights problems. And I think if you start to take this kind of action, it doesn't really serve the purpose of human rights," Powell told "Good Morning America."
"What is accomplished by boycotting the opening ceremony?" Powell asked rhetorically. "I don't think that makes the situation any better. It probably makes the situation a little more difficult for the Chinese because they will pull back even more."
Powell encouraged China to begin a dialogue with the Dalia Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet.
"I think we ought (to) recognize that these protests are legitimate, recognize that the Chinese ought to move forward and start having a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and not just say, 'We're not going to talk to you.' (The) Dalai Lama has indicated flexibility. And I think that's what the Chinese should do," he said. "But I don't think that these kinds of actions such as boycotting an opening ceremony, or even perhaps thinking twice about sending your team to the Olympics has the desired effect.
"I very much supported in 2001 when I was secretary of state, that we give the Olympics to the Chines because I thought it would put them under a spotlight. And they have responded to that spotlight," he said. "But they haven't with respect to Tibet. And these demonstrations show the Chinese leadership that the world is watching this."
Returning to presidential politics, Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, as "deplorable" but complimented the Democratic candidate for his speech on race that followed in the aftermath.
"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."
Powell added that he does not know Wright and praised Obama's response.
"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.
Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama.
"It was a good (speech)," Powell said. "I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said."
WASHINGTON — Army leaders are expressing increased alarm about the mental health of soldiers who would be sent back to the front again and again under plans that call for troop numbers to be sustained at high levels in Iraq for this year and beyond.
Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers’ mental health.
The stress of long and multiple deployments to Iraq is just one of the concerns being voiced by senior military officers in Washington as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Iraq commander, prepares to tell Congress this week that he is not ready to endorse any drawdowns beyond those already scheduled through July.
President Bush has signaled that he will endorse General Petraeus’s recommendation, a decision that will leave close to 140,000 American troops in Iraq at least through the summer. But in a meeting with Mr. Bush late last month in advance of General Petraeus’s testimony, the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed deep concern about stress on the force, senior Defense Department and military officials said.
Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times, according to a separate set of statistics provided this week by Army personnel officers. The percentage of troops sent back to Iraq for repeat deployments would have to increase in the months ahead.
The Army study of mental health showed that 27 percent of noncommissioned officers — a critically important group — on their third or fourth tour exhibited symptoms commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorders. That figure is far higher than the roughly 12 percent who exhibit those symptoms after one tour and the 18.5 percent who develop the disorders after a second deployment, according to the study, which was conducted by the Army surgeon general’s Mental Health Advisory Team.
The Army and the rest of the service chiefs have endorsed General Petraeus’s recommendations for continued high troop levels in Iraq. But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, and their top deputies also have warned that the war in Iraq should not be permitted to inflict an unacceptable toll on the military as a whole. “Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it,” Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, said in stark comments delivered to Congress last week. “Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families, testing the resolve of our all-volunteer force like never before.”
Beyond the Army, members of the Joint Chiefs have also told the president that the continued troop commitment to Iraq means that there is a significant level of risk should another crisis erupt elsewhere in the world. Any mission could be carried out successfully, the chiefs believe, but the operation would be slower, longer and costlier in lives and equipment than if the armed forces were not so strained.
Under the drawdown already planned, the departure of five combat brigades from Iraq by July should allow the Army to announce that tours will be shortened to 12 months from 15 by the end of summer.
Even so, senior officers warn that time at home must be increased from the current 12 months between combat tours. Otherwise, they say, the ground forces risk an unacceptable level of retirements of sergeants — the key leaders of the small-unit operations — and of experienced captains, who represent the future of the Army’s officer corps.
The mental health study conducted by the Army was carried out in Iraq last October and November, and does not represent a purely scientific sampling of deployed troops, because that is difficult to accomplish in a combat environment, the authors of the study have said. Instead, the study was based on 2,295 anonymous surveys and additional interviews from members of frontline units in combat brigades, and not from those assigned primarily to safer operating bases. Since the study was distributed last month, it has become a central topic of high-level internal discussions within the Army, and its findings have been accepted by Army leaders, senior Pentagon and military officials say.
The survey found that the proportion of soldiers serving in Iraq who had encountered mental health problems was about the same as found in previous studies — about 18 percent of deployed soldiers. But in analyzing the effect of the war on those with previous duty in Iraq, the study found that “soldiers on multiple deployments report low morale, more mental health problems and more stress-related work problems.”
By the time they are on their third or fourth deployments, soldiers “are at particular risk of reporting mental health problems,” the study found.
The range of symptoms reported by soldiers varies widely, from sleeplessness and anxiety to more severe depression and stress. To assist soldiers facing problems, the Army has begun to hire more civilian mental health professionals while directing Army counselors to spend more time with frontline units.
Senior officers at the Pentagon have tried to avoid shrill warnings about the health of the force, cognizant that such comments might embolden potential adversaries, and they continue to hope that troop levels in Iraq can be reduced next year. Still, none deny the level of stress on the force from current deployments.
Admiral Mullen spoke broadly to those concerns last week, saying at a Pentagon news conference that the military would have already assigned forces to missions elsewhere in the world were it not for what he called “the pressure that’s on our forces right now.”
He added that the military would “continue to be there until, should conditions allow, we start to be able to reduce our force levels in Iraq.”
One example of the pressure has come in Afghanistan, where the Pentagon has been unable to meet all of the commanders’ requests for more forces, in particular for several thousand military trainers.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters on Friday that he expected that the United States would be able to add significantly to its deployments in Afghanistan in 2009. But to do that — and to increase time at home for soldiers between deployments — probably would require further reductions in troop levels in Iraq, Pentagon planners said.
Members of the Joint Chiefs also acknowledge that the deployments to Iraq, with the emphasis on counterinsurgency warfare, have left the ground forces no time to train for the full range of missions required to defend American interests.
By Avram Goldstein
April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said ``disunity'' is the main threat to victory in the presidential race this year, and it would be helpful if more unpledged superdelegates would reveal their choices soon.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois leads Senator Hillary Clinton of New York in delegates needed to choose the Democratic nominee with nine states and Puerto Rico still to vote. Among all delegates, Obama is ahead of Clinton 1,635 to 1,501, according to the Associated Press, with 2,024 required to win. Most were pledged in primaries and caucuses.
The campaign is likely to be decided by the 800 so-called superdelegates, who are elected and party officials empowered to vote as they wish at the national convention. So far, 460 have declared their preferences, Dean said. The remaining 340 should make their decisions known by July 1 to avert a disastrous party convention in Denver in August, Dean said.
``The only thing that can beat us is disunity in the Democratic Party,'' Dean said today on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``I hope the superdelegates will understand that in order to keep the party together, we need a nominee.''
Many superdelegates are waiting until June, when voters will have made their choices in the last of the primaries, the Washington Post said today.
``I'm not in a hurry to do this,'' the Post quoted Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio as saying.
Senator John McCain of Arizona has already clinched the delegates necessary to win the Republican nomination.
For now, the Democrats' nomination battle is helping the party, Dean said.
`Record Turnouts'
``We're having record turnouts everywhere,'' he said. ``I think this is actually going to make it easier for us to win as long as we keep the party together.''
Still, he said on CBS's ``Face the Nation:'' ``The ongoing dispute, while it's healthy in the short run, needs to have an end.''
Michigan and Florida violated Democratic Party rules by advancing the dates of their primaries against the wishes of Dean and the party leaders. Each state was stripped of superdelegates and delegates picked by voters. Dean has been unable to resolve how to count their delegates, and Obama and Clinton each have taken opposite positions on what to do.
Clinton wants both states counted in her column because she prevailed in the two primaries though some Democrats followed party instructions and stayed away. Obama's name didn't appear on the Michigan ballot.
``Michigan's wasn't an election,'' Dean said. ``You only had one candidate on the ballot. That's not an election.''
Dean said he is trying to negotiate a compromise to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the convention. Voters in those states shouldn't be disenfranchised by the actions of political leaders who rescheduled the primary dates, he said.
``They will count in some way,'' Dean told CBS's ``Face the Nation.'' ``There is a reasonable, thoughtful way to do this.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Avram Goldstein in Washington atagoldstein1@bloomberg.net.
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's ability to reduce troop levels in Iraq will hinge on how well the Iraqis handle violent outbreaks like the recent operations in Basra, the Pentagon's top military officer said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, three retired generals testified on Capitol Hill that the military faces the likelihood of increasing chaos in Iraq.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would not label the operation a win or defeat for the Iraqi troops. But he said it did not indicate a need for more U.S. troops in Iraq, and would not likely change the immediate recommendations Gen. David Petraeus will deliver to Congress next week.
Mullen said officials are still assessing the mixed results of the Basra operation, in which Iraqi-led forces battled Shiite militias. The fighting has fallen off, and violence had dipped to pre-clash levels.
The importance of the Basra combat in the U.S. military evaluations was underscored, however, by the fact that Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, delayed his travel to Washington for several days this week to assess the situation.
"It's very clear that if we had this kind of violence for a sustained period of time, those are the kinds of conditions on the ground that must go into (the) assessment of, 'Do I have enough troops to do this?'" Mullen told a Pentagon press conference. "This was a particularly violent week."
Waiting for Petraeus' estimatesMany of Petraeus' expected recommendations have been rolled out over the past two months, including plans for a pause in troop cuts after July when the last of the five additional brigades ordered to Iraq last year have come home.
It is expected that Petraeus will give Congress some estimate of how many U.S. troops he believes will be needed in Iraq through the end of the year, and how many more brigades could be withdrawn without sending in replacements.
There are now 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including 18 combat brigades — down from a peak of 20 brigades for much of the past year. By the end of July, military leaders have said those numbers would fall to 140,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades.
While Mullen praised Iraq leaders for taking on the Basra assault, he acknowledged concerns that it could have been planned better, and that some Iraqi forces did not perform well.
"We've been looking forward to ... a time when the Iraqi security forces would, in fact, take the lead and be aggressive in terms of providing for their own security," said Mullen.
The U.S. sent more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq last year in an attempt to quell mounting violence. That effort has seen success in Baghdad, but the recent fighting in Basra threatened those security gains.
'Chaos no matter what we do'On Capitol Hiill, a panel of leading military experts offered varying opinions on a post-surge exit strategy from Iraq, with all seemingly agreeing that the military faces an increasingly chaotic situation there.
Retired Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran who's been sharply critical of the Iraq war, gave the most dire assessment, saying the surge "is prolonging instability." He bluntly predicted "chaos no matter what we do."
Odom even predicted Baghdad could wind up looking like Dien Bien Phu, where the French were defeated by guerrillas in Vietnam in the 1950s.
Odom said the U.S. should consider leaving immediately. "You get out of Iraq in boats and airplanes, and you drive down to the harbor to get into the boats and you don't have a much better choice than that."
The other witnesses were not as pessimistic, but acknowledged tough challenges for the U.S. strategy in Iraq.
Can U.S. troops train Iraqi force?Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News military analyst, said the Iraqi government "in a general sense is completely dysfunctional. "
He and retired Gen. Robert Scales said there aren't adequate numbers of troops to continue the war at its current pace. They argued the U.S. military should be focused on immediately training the Iraqi troops to take over the fight.
Scales warned that the battlefield gains of the surge may be lost if the U.S. fails in the training mission.
Odom, however, argued that without political consensus among Iraqis, "no matter how you train the troops they're not going to fight successfully."
McCaffrey said the U.S. military leadership had dramatically improved the prospects for success in Iraq, but added "the events of the last week underscore the chaotic nature inside the three major factions."
Problems in BasraShiite militias largely have held sway over Basra, the country's oil capital, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad and a major commercial center of 2 million people. Government efforts to assert control have been unsuccessful.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had personally overseen the attempt last week to drive out the militias, launching it with the promise of "a decisive and final battle." He returned to Baghdad Tuesday politically battered.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner conceded there were problems in Basra.
"Overall the majority of the Iraqi security forces performed their mission, though some were not up to the task," he said at a news conference in Baghdad.
Top Michigan Democrats will meet Friday, perhaps to pull the plug on attempts to hold a new presidential contest, while Hillary Clinton's campaign rolled out a new tactic in its efforts to count the results of the disputed Jan. 15 primary.
The state party's executive committee is to meet by conference call, and Democrats involved in the issue said the panel could vote to end discussions of party-run caucuses or a mail-in vote, options promoted by some Clinton supporters as an alternative to the January primary. Michigan, along with Florida, have been barred from the Democratic National Convention in August because their January contests violated party scheduling rules.
The do-over idea has become increasingly unlikely over recent weeks, but a formal declaration that it's not possible would put new pressure on Clinton to accept a negotiated split of Michigan's 156 delegates.
Advertisement
Party spokeswoman Liz Kerr would not confirm that such a decision could come Friday, but said state chairman Mark Brewer has repeatedly questioned whether a do-over vote is possible given the limited time available and massive turnout it could generate.
National Democratic officials have repeatedly said they have no intention of honoring the results of the Jan. 15 vote, which Clinton won after Sen. Barack Obama and other contenders pulled their names from the ballot. But Clinton and her aides have argued that failing to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida would disenfranchise voters in two important states.
Today Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said more than 100,000 people had signed an online petition on the issue in the first 12 or 14 hours after it was posted on the campaign's Website.
Party leaders in both states have largely concluded that only a negotiated split of delegates between the two campaigns can ensure that their delegates are seated. But Clinton has resisted calls for negotiation, criticizing Obama for opposing new votes.
Singer said Thursday that the campaign was awaiting the outcome of two challenges to the delegate ban by a Florida party member before taking any new steps. Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman has asked the national party to reinstate his state's superdelegates, and to allow half the state's pledged delegates, chosen in a Jan. 29 primary, to attend the convention. It's unclear when the party's rules committee will hear the appeals.
Two related audio files:
Media conference call with StandUpCongress.org on April 1st.
Radio show with ThePeopleSpeakRadio.net on March 17th.
Testimony before Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations:
Here's the PDF.
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQBy William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
2 April 2008
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.
I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.
More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a politicalsolution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.
No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.
Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.
Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.
Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. TheSunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans,including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aidesexpress about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utternonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq.The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites,like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need onlytake note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the pastyear or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomband invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime.As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice presidentand some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda onspreading the war to Iran.
Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on beingpaid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate thatthe cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 perday. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees areincreased. You might want to find out the total costs for these dealsforecasted for the next several years, because they are not small andthey do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people.We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment.At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from thegovernment’s troops and police, hardly a sign of politicalreconciliation.
Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating dealswith the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified amongthemselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and joinour forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violencereflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men whodistrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves.Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of theproliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow aproliferating number of political bosses.
This can hardly be called greater military stability, much lessprogress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility thatneeds more time to become success is to ignore its implications. Atthe same time, Prime Minister Maliki’s military actions in Basra andBaghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. Weare witnessing is more accurately described as the road to theBalkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are beingasked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power andfinance to so many local chieftains is the road to politicalcentralization. He describes the process as building the state fromthe bottom up.
I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historicalcase where power has been aggregated successfully from localstrong men to a central government except through bloody violenceleading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history offeudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It isthe story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War.It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.
How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power aseffective state building? More accurately described, it has placed theUnited States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides toconsolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.
To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with anover extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appearbefore you, you should make them clarify how long the army andmarines can sustain this band-aid strategy.
The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping USstrategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regionalstability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward thatgoal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merelyrenounced his threat of regime change by force, that could promptIran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Irandetests the Taliban and supports them only because they will killmore Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attackon Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.
No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, butUS steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivablethan a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’spolicy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclearweapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.
Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from theregion. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forcesand diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.
A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t makesense.
First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military trainingelement with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no senseat all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safeand effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers Ihave heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.
Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. Weheard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, thepath to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether wewithdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moralresponsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly toblame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it.American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so aremisleading both the public and themselves if they believe it.The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of moreAmericans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means tostop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. Thatis the moral responsibility to our country which no American leadersseems willing to assume.
Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.
I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.
Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.
From NBC's Domenico MontanaroObama picked up another superdelegate, continuing the slow drip in his direction. (He has picked up 12 since March 4th to Clinton's one.)
The latest is former Sen. John Melcher, of Montana. "Melcher says he chose Obama because he believes the Illinois senator has been against the Iraq war since the start," the AP reports.
Melcher served in the U.S. Senate from 1977 to 1989 and is a superdelegate to the national convention based on his role with the National Democratic Seniors Coordinating Committee.
Obama now leads in the overall delegate count, 1,639-1,507. Clinton leads among superdelegates, 255-223.
