January 6, 2020

What was Amy Klobuchar's position on the Iraq War?

Minnesota senators’ ‘No’ votes on Iraq War — and other 10th anniversary thoughts

(snip) Several months before the bombing began, President Bush asked for and received congressional authorization to take military action against Iraq, unilaterally if necessary, whenever he considered it necessary, and without requiring U.N. authorization.

It tends to be remembered as a more overwhelming and bipartisan vote than it was. Although almost every congressional Republican voted aye, the majority of House Democrats (126-81) vote against it and a substantial minority of Senate Dems (22 out of 51) also voted no. Minnesota was one of just six states that contributed two “no” votes and, given subsequent events, it might be worth mentioning who cast them.

Paul Wellstone was the only senator who was up for re-election who voted no on the resolution. The vote was on Oct. 11, 2002, less than a month before Election Day and Wellstone was locked in a tight race with Republican Norm Coleman, who strongly supported Bush and the war. It was Wellstone’s last gutty liberal vote. The plane crash was precisely two weeks later.

The other Minnesota senator who voted no was Mark Dayton who, as you may have noticed, is now our governor. When I had occasion to ask Dayton about his single generally undistingushed Senate term during which he was famously miserable, he immediately brought up that vote, which I take to be the proudest one he cast.

(snip)Amy Klobuchar in 2003 was Hennepin County attorney and not required by that job to take a position on issues of war, peace or foreign policy, even as she contemplated making a run for statewide office. (A lot of earlier speculation had her running for attorney general.) I am unaware of anything she may have said on the public record about the Iraq war before she emerged as a Senate candidate in 2005. Like Coleman, her opponent U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy had supported the war in advance (in fact, he had voted to authorize it) and was unflinching about his continuing support for the mission. Klobuchar asserted that she had been against the war from the beginning. As a candidate, although she moved around a bit on how quick a schedule or how firm a deadline, she favored a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops and has been supportive of those poilicies as a senator.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/minnesota-senators-no-votes-iraq-war-and-other-10th-anniversary-thoughts/

January 6, 2020

538: Biden has a 35% chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

What Decades Of Primary Polls Tell Us About The 2020 Democratic Presidential Race

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous.

(snip) ... according to our analysis, someone polling around where Biden was in the second half of the year has roughly a 35 percent chance of claiming the Democratic nomination. A 1-in-3 chance isn’t great, but this is still better than, say, Bernie Sanders’s or Elizabeth Warren’s chances. They essentially tied for second, with an unadjusted polling average around 16 percent in the second half of the year, which historically has meant a 10 percent chance of winning.

(snip) Early national polls conducted in the year before the first nominating contests do have predictive value, but remember there isn’t one national primary. Instead, parties choose presidential nominees via state-by-state elections over the course of a few months. And that sequential nature of the primary makes it hard for national polls to capture all the dynamics of the race — a candidate falling short of expectations in Iowa or unexpectedly winning both Iowa and New Hampshire can swiftly alter the playing field for the remaining primaries.

But having examined all the national polls from the last six months of 2019, the bottom line is that, at this point, Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot. And this uncertainty around Biden as the front-runner lines up with what else we know about the race — Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders are fighting for the lead in Iowa while Biden and Sanders are neck-and-neck in New Hampshire, and Biden raised less money than either Sanders or Buttigieg in the final quarter of 2019. So as we jump into the new year and brace ourselves for the first two nominating contests, remember that Biden has the best chance of winning his party’s nomination, but it’s also quite possible that someone else will be facing off against President Trump this November.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-decades-of-primary-polls-tell-us-about-the-2020-democratic-presidential-race/

January 6, 2020

Newsweek: Trump Is 'More Unhinged By The Hour'

Trump Is 'More Unhinged By The Hour,' U.S. Senator Warns Amid Escalating Iraq, Iran Tensions: 'A Very Dangerous Time'

A U.S. Senator accused President Donald Trump of becoming "more unhinged by the hour" as tensions with both Iraq and Iran escalate further following America's assassination of a senior Iranian general near Baghdad airport.

And Brett McGurk, a former top diplomat and national security adviser who served in the past three administrations said Trump's threats to Iran are stretching "the boundaries of our constitutional republic to a real extreme."

"President Trump is more unhinged by the hour," Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, wrote on Twitter. "Threatening war crimes and now threatening our Iraqi allies. Telling Congress via Twitter that he can start a war with Iran. This is a very dangerous time. Congress must demand that he comply with the Constitution."

(snip) "We need to presume that we are now at war with Iran. I don't say that lightly. We can hope for the best, but the presumption is we're at war with Iran"...

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-iran-iraq-soleimani-war-congress-constitution-1480538

McGurk served under Trump as a special presidential envoy to the global coalition for countering ISIS.

January 6, 2020

Only _____ can beat trump

False. As a matter of strict logic, trump can beat himself.

There are black swan events on the horizon. The crash of the sugar hit economy, whatever is going to happen with Iran, and who knows what else in MF45's toxic world. It would be foolhardy to rely on them, and worse to wish for their birth, but the zeitgeist of 2008 is all around us. Democrats are united in their hatred of the tyranny that is upon us and determined to put it to the electoral sword.

In 2007 I wrote posted a satirical OP, titled something like this: 'No candidate can win the election' - with two word judgments on the contenders. I remember these two HRC: negatives, baggage; Obama: black, green.

To my surprise, DU'ers took it seriously, and agreed with little dissent. When supporting a candidate brings the faults of the others into focus, and it can be like that. As things turned out, our angst and fury were spits of rain as the Great Recession was forming off the coast.

Polls suggest there is a hardcore 45% who, as this time, want MF45 out, no matter what. The GOP fear and smear campaign may soften those numbers, but there is undoubtedly a solid foundation on which to build the blowout necessary to turn the page.

IMO we do not have the luxury of pessimism, however attractive it may be, about any of our candidates chances of winning the GE. Who will win the decisive victory and has the best chance of getting critical Democratic legislation through Congress is the name of the game. Failure is not an option. It's first down, then game on. Hut-hut. My 2c.

This is the time
Because there is no time
Lou Reed.

January 6, 2020

Banned Euorvision Song : We Don't Wanna Put In

If you want to know how to pronounce Putin in English
apparently this is right on the money.

We don't wanna put in
the negative move, it's killin' the groove
I'm a-tryin' to shoot in
some disco tonight, boogie with you

An entry from the Georgian Republic
banned for being a political statement.

The House of Representatives has an entry on Twitter
The Foreign Affairs Committee will not be sidelined.
A Reminder: We Don't Wanna Putin
https://twitter.com/HouseForeign/status/1213953699371982853

January 6, 2020

Trump doubles down on bombing Iran's cultural sites

Trump doubles down on threat to strike cultural sites in Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — US President Donald Trump insisted Sunday that Iranian cultural sites were fair game for the US military, dismissing concerns within his own administration that doing so would constitute a war crime under international law.

He also warned Iraq that the US would levy punishing sanctions if it expelled American troops in retaliation for a US strike in Baghdad that killed a top Iranian official.

(snip) Trump first raised the prospect of targeting Iranian cultural sites Saturday in a tweet. Speaking with reporters Sunday as he returned to Washington from his holiday stay in Florida, he doubled down, despite international prohibitions.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from a holiday stay at his Florida estate.

“If they do anything there will be major retaliation,” he said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-doubles-down-on-threat-to-strike-cultural-sites-in-iran/

Suleimani killing: Donald Trump defends threat to hit cultural sites in Iran

(snip) Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One ... he sought to offer a justification. “They’re allowed to kill our people,” Trump said, according to a pool report. “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

Targeting cultural sites is prohibited by international conventions signed in Geneva and at the Hague. In 2017, the United Nations security council passed unanimously a resolution condemning the destruction of heritage sites. The action previewed by Trump would almost certainly involve the deaths of civilians.

Human Rights Watch condemned the president’s words. “President Trump should publicly reverse his threats against Iran’s cultural property and make clear that he will not authorise nor order war crimes,” said Andrea Prasow, its acting Washington director. “The US Defense Department should publicly reaffirm its commitment to abide by the laws of war and comply only with lawful military orders.”

She added: “Trump’s threat to attack Iran’s cultural heritage shows his callous disregard for the global rule of law. Whether refusing to condemn the brutal murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi or pardoning convicted war criminals, Trump has shown little respect for human rights as part of US foreign policy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/06/suleimani-killing-donald-trump-defends-threat-to-hit-cultural-sites-in-iran

UNESCO listed World Heritage sites in Iran



https://en.radiofarda.com/a/unesco-world-heritage-sites-in-iran/29579036.html

January 5, 2020

The Latest: Iran will no longer abide by nuclear deal limits

Source: Associated Press

Iranian state television reports that Iran will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal.

The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of
Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad.

It’s unclear what this means for the program, especially when it comes to enrichment of uranium.

Authorities did not immediately elaborate.

Read more: https://apnews.com/2fd2efad28f41f82f8204d4d3ae05ba6

January 4, 2020

Australian families fleeing fires turned away from Navy ships

Australian Navy refuses to take children under five years old. An airlift is planned for children and the disabled left behind. (WTF is going on down there!)

Families stuck in Mallacoota after Navy ships discouraged children under 5

Families with babies are stranded in Mallacoota - where the sky has once again turned “pitch black” - after being told they would not be evacuated via Navy ships because their children were under five.

Emergency Management Victoria said “vulnerable individuals” - including families with children under school age, the elderly and people with disabilities - would be prioritised for airlift.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/families-stuck-in-mallacoota-after-navy-ships-discouraged-children-under-5-20200104-p53otm.html

January 4, 2020

Australian PM puts up fire appeal FB page with scam 'Donate' button

It sends donations to his Political Party !!!
Unbelievable.
https://twitter.com/matttburke/status/1213359418613489666

Matt Burke
‏@matttburke
People should be aware that the prominent DONATE button in the link the PM has posted with his bushfire ad on FB is raising funds for the LIBERAL PARTY and NOT bushfire relief."

January 4, 2020

Murdoch papers downplay wildfires in Australia. Stories moved off the front page.

Rupert's flagship leads with calls for policing of indigenous alcoholism. Fires on page 4.

Murdoch-owned newspaper accused of downplaying bushfires in favour of picnic races

The Australian, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, has defended itself against criticism it downplayed unprecedented bushfires by failing to put a picture of the disaster on the front page of an edition, even as newspapers across the world featured the harrowing scenes.

(snip) The national broadsheet’s lead story on Thursday was about a secret proposal by police to ban alcohol in Indigenous communities in Western Australia – a story deemed more important than the bushfire report, which said eight people were dead and mass evacuations were underway.

There wasn’t a single photo of the catastrophic bushfires until page 4.

Before readers got to that coverage, they were given an exclusive interview with “rebel marine scientist Peter Ridd” who has challenged reef scientists to test whether or not human actions have caused a collapse in the growth rate of corals on the Great Barrier Reef.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/04/the-australian-murdoch-owned-newspaper-accused-of-downplaying-bushfires-in-favour-of-picnic-races?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other