Despite growing disapproval of Congress, Democratic House candidates — both incumbents and challengers — are steadily gaining ground for a 2008 election likely to be a repeat of 2006, according to two surveys by Democracy Corps.
The surveys dispute the hardening conventional wisdom that the failure of Democrats to force the start of withdrawal from Iraq has turned voters against both parties. The notion that the public sees Democrats and Republicans as “equal offenders…completely misreads the current moment,” according to Democracy Corps.
Instead, the authors of an accompanying memo — Stan Greenberg, James Carville and Ana Iparraguirre — contend that “Democrats are maintaining stable and nearly landslide leads in both the race for President as measured by generic performance (51-41) and the named ballot for Congress (52-42 percent).”
In a targeted survey of the 70 congressional districts most likely to be competitive in 2008 (half with Democratic incumbents, the other half with Republicans in office), Democracy Corps found that Democratic incumbents hold a solid 52-40 lead on average. In contrast, the Republicans are in trouble: when voters are asked whom they would choose between the named GOP incumbent and an unnamed (generic) Democrat, the Republicans are behind on average 44-49.
WASHINGTON –
Two former employees of First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting, the company that’s building the new $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, testified to a House of Representatives panel Thursday that they had observed abuses of construction workers.
John Owens, who worked on the site as a security liaison from November 2005 to June 2006, said he had seen foreign workers packed in trailers and working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, with time off on Fridays for Muslim prayers. Several told him they earned about $300 a month, after fees were taken out, and that they were docked three days’ pay for such offenses as clocking in five minutes late.
Rory Mayberry, who said he had been a medic on the site for five days, said First Kuwaiti had asked him to escort 51 Filipino men from Kuwait to Baghdad but not to tell them where they were going. Their tickets showed that they were flying to Dubai, Mayberry said. They screamed protests when they discovered on the flight that they were headed to Baghdad, he said.
Mayberry also said he had seen workers on scaffolding without safety harnesses.
In a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said Americans were responsible because U.S. taxpayers’ money paid the workers. Republican Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut agreed.
”We have to make sure in the process of trying to find people who can work on the embassy, if Iraqis can’t, that we are in essence not becoming part of the problem of human trafficking,” Shays said.
First Kuwaiti said in a statement that Owens’ and Mayberry’s claims were unsubstantiated. It said it had fired Mayberry when he couldn’t prove he was a medic, and that Owens had filed a lawsuit against the company that was pending.
”The implication that First Kuwaiti laborers are brought into Iraq against their will and are kept there to work against their will is absolutely ludicrous,” it said.
The committee’s examination of alleged abuses at the new Baghdad embassy came as workers are finishing the 21 buildings that will make up the huge office and residential compound for American diplomats in the fortified Green Zone. America’s largest embassy is on schedule for completion in September.
The State Department’s inspector general, Howard Krongard, said he had received allegations that workers had signed contracts at home to work in Dubai and hadn’t learned that they were going to Baghdad until they were in the air and almost there. He said he had also heard other complaints, including some about squalid living conditions.
Krongard said a brief review that he had conducted in Baghdad last September had found no evidence of trafficking in persons or of human-rights abuses against the mostly South and East Asian workers.
Leila Fadel contributed to this report from Baghdad.
“The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year,” the committee’s chairman said. “The evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. .”
Leahy also described a Justice Department in a state of ‘crisis.’ He worried that most of the senior leadership in the department had resigned.
“I would joke that the last one out the door should turn off the lights, but the Department of Justice is more important than that,” he stated. “We need to shine more light on the Justice Department, not less”
The Vermont Democrat went on to criticize Gonzales for failing to be forthcoming with information about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of National Security Letters and said it pointed to an inability to trust Gonzales and the Bush administration.
“With a history of civil liberty abuses and cover ups, this administration has squandered our trust,” he warned.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking Republican on the committee, also said that Gonzales’ acceptance of responsibility was not sufficient.
“That is not enough,” he said. “The question is whether or not the Department of Justice is functioning as it must.”
Specter criticized Gonzales for failing to give a clear explanation for why the prosecutors were fired. He also slammed the White House for lacking flexibility in preparing oversight.
“Now we have a very remarkable turn of events: we now have the announcement that the administration will preclude the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from bringing a contempt citation,” he said. “The president in that manner can stymie Congressional oversight…if that is to happen, the president can run the government as he chooses.”
Specter then suggested the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor because he said the President had a conflict of interest. He went on to also offer the alternative that the Senate could try a contempt charge of its own, or consider the model of the impeachment of Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge who now serves as a Democratic Congressman from Florida. Continue Reading »
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon’s military agenda in Iraq.
The Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of “certain persons” who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
“I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.”
In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to “block the property” and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of “Certain Persons” involved in antiwar activities. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America, including civil society organizations, who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those “Certain Persons” who are “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction”, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq’s oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.
The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush’s program of “political reform in Iraq”, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi “government” installed by the occupation forces. Continue Reading »
Cindy Sheehan Occupies John Conyers’ Office
Cindy Sheehan led 2-300 impeachment activists on a march from Arlington Cemetary to the Congressional office of Rep. John Conyers, whose job as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee puts him in charge of impeachment. AP reports:
“Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution; Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table,” Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists Monday. “If Nancy Pelosi doesn’t do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight … I will announce that I’m going to run against her.”
I just got a live report from David Swanson, who says Conyers is nowhere to be found - but Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and former CIA presidential briefer Ray McGovern are inside his office holding a press conference!
In fact, there are so many reporters with Cindy that they are taking turns going into the packed office to ask questions.
At least 300 activists are lining the halls outside the office, both the marchers and those who went directly to the Capitol.
Update 1:30 EST: Conyers staff is negotiating with activists to move the protest to a larger room.
In Detroit, 50 people went to Conyers’ district office, but they only let 5 people in and wouldn’t let them keep their cellphones so we’re not getting any reports.
Update 1:35 EST: Conyers just arrived!! As he walked down the hall, activists shouted IMPEACH so loud the whole floor echoed. Conyers and his staff took Cindy, Rev., and Ray into a private office without the media. Stay tuned!
Update 2:55 EST: After an 80-minute meeting, Cindy emerged and told the activists that Conyers said “our only recourse is elections,” and the activists groaned. Cindy announced she will run against Pelosi because she and Conyers haven’t “stepped up,” and the activists cheered. Rev. Yearwood is giving a fired-up speech and activists are crowding in to Conyers’ office for the sit-in.
Update 3:43 EST: Capitol Police arrested Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Yearwood, David Swanson, and 20 other activists and put them on a police bus. But all is not grim - Cindy is calling it her “campaign bus.”
Mr. Conyers Goes to San Diego —PDA Style
The distinguished Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and National PDA Advisory Board Member Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) arrived here early in San Diego to attend the Tri-Caucus Minority Health Summit, July 20-21, 2007 along with PDA Board Member Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) and quite a few other elected, including other Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) members, Rep.William “Lacy” Clay (D-Missouri), Rep. Bob Filner (D-California), Rep. Mike Honda (D-California), Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin), and Rep. Hilda Solis (D-California).
On his arrival, however, after his staff notified PDA Leaders here less than 48 hours prior that he would have a little extra time and like to get together with some of us fellow grassroots progressives, Mr. Conyers got a terrific eyeful and earful of what US House Speaker Pelosi got on her visit here just three short months ago at the California Democratic Convention— Impeachment, is still on our table!
Thanks to the lightning-quick organizing skills of PDA San Diego Metro Chapter Leader Judy Hess , a meeting room at a nearby hotel was packed with SD area activists (and a few like myself from neighboring Orange County), including some of us who had brought our most effective community awareness tools: homemade “Impeach” signs and their Sunday best “Impeach Bush & Cheney” tee shirts.
So much so that Mr. Conyers, in very short order, went right up to the microphone and announced that it was time to “take these two guys out”. He further announced that all he needs for his committee to commence investigations as to alleged crimes of Bush and Cheney is just a few other congress members and it will be done.
With fellow PDA Advisory Board Members Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, and others promising to be a presence in his Capitol Hill office as of Monday, July 23 rd toward this same purpose, Mr. Conyers in his most compelling and amiable manner addressed this constitutional issue head on, and proceeded to then take the same message to the Health Care Summit which followed. Again, he got the most rousing applause of the evening by invoking the need for peaceful regime change here at home, to address all the Bush/Cheney neglected and abused matters of social and economic justice, such as getting out of Iraq, and Universal Single-Payer Health Care.
As a very willful participant and observer, I could not have been prouder of the efforts of PDA San Diego and the political brilliance of Representative John Conyers on this seemingly momentous day in this undoubtedly dire era of our nation’s history.
Respectfully Submitted by Dr. Bill Honigman, PDA Calif State Coordinator, July 22, 2007
The dismissal of the Wilson’s suit was a big drag. In his judgment, Judge Bates acknowledges that “the merits of plaintiffs’ claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials.” Marcy says:
All of which is a 40-page way of saying what Cheney and Libby and Rove and Armitage did was wrong. But a civil suit is not the appropriate venue to address that wrong. And with Bush’s self-serving commutation of Libby’s sentence, the criminal courts have been foreclosed as the means to address that wrong, too.Which leaves Congress. There is abundant evidence already in the public record showing top members of the Administration–including Bush himself–abused their positions of power to rebut Joe Wilson. Some of those actions–including the commutation itself, since it removed Bush from criminal liability for his actions–fit well within the purview of Congress.It’s time to step up, Congress. That crappy hearing last week did much to polarize the two parties. But did little to address the evidence before us, pertaining directly to Bush’s potential move to declassify a CIA spy’s identity for political retaliation. Two judges who have reviewed the facts agree the actions were wrong. What is Congress going to do about it?
It is hard to imagine that Terry Schaivo could move Congress to such theatrical feats of midnight dramaturgy yet they can’t be bothered to do anything about this. Or the war. Everyone has their priorities, I guess.
Meanwhile, John Conyers gives Josh Bolton until 10am on Monday to comply with his subpoenas, which “could result in contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192, 194 or under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.”
Which raises the question — why isn’t Harriet Miers in jail?
By Jason Leopold and Matt Renner of Truthout
A federal judge has dismissed the civil lawsuit filed against top Bush administration officials by former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The judge, John Bates of the US District Court in Washington, DC is a Bush appointee who previously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the federal government against Vice President Dick Cheney. That suit sought access to Cheney’s energy task force documents.
Since his tenure on the federal bench began six years ago, Bates’s legal opinions and rulings supporting the administration’s executive powers stand in stark contrast to his legal work as an assistant US attorney. He worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr prosecuting President Clinton’s Whitewater investment deals.
In 1997, Bates successfully argued for the release of thousands of pages of White House documents related to Hillary Clinton’s conversations about Whitewater.
In January 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that the judge was a hypocrite by pursuing access to White House documents when Clinton was in office while supporting Cheney’s claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over his energy task force documents to Congress.
“When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House,” Leahy said. “I guess it’s a lot different when it’s a Republican vice president.” Continue Reading »
Seventy House Members To Bush: No More Money For Your War
A group of around 70 House Democrats wrote a toughly-worded letter to President Bush today informing him that they would no longer vote for funding of the troops in any form save if the money were spent exclusively on withdrawing them from Iraq. Here’s what this means: A quarter of the majority party is now for cutting off funding for the troops if they’re staying. This could complicate Congress’ efforts to pass another war-spending bill this fall that represents anything short of a quick exit from Iraq. –Greg Sargent
Here’s the full letter from 70-odd House members to Bush saying, in effect, no more money for your war:
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
