Printer Friendly
July
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur –
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
1. Rice begins talks on 'durable solution' - ABC News
Condoleezza Rice has begun talks with Israel's Prime Minister, saying it is
time for a new Middle East.
"A durable solution will be one that strengthens the forces of peace and the
forces of democracy in this region," she said.
2. How the UN legitimizes terrorists - Chicago Tribune Op-ed
If the UN cannot--or will not--distinguish between terrorists who target
civilians and a democracy that seeks to stop the terrorism while minimizing
civilian casualties, it has become part of the problem, rather than part of
the solution.
3. Hastert lends Border Patrol his helicopter to help agent - Washington Times
Speaker Hastert traveled to the Southwest during the weekend to survey for
himself the porous borders that have become his party's campaign battle cry
and ended up having to loan one of his helicopters to Border Patrol agents
who found themselves short-handed.
4. The sunset bills - Washington Times Op-ed
Critics worry that the sunset bills on the House floor this week would allow
a Republican president and a Republican Congress to eliminate a program or
an agency without the benefit of a single Democratic vote. True. But in
1993, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress imposed a massive tax
increase and draconian budget cuts in defense without a single Republican
vote -- and electoral retribution was exacted the next year.
5. One Size Fits Nunn - Congress Daily AM
It makes a big difference
whether voters are judging based on the decision to invade Iraq or whether
it is on what course of action should be taken next, with the latter very
likely to minimize or at least moderate Democratic gains this November.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Rice begins talks on 'durable solution'
- ABC News
By Emma Griffiths in Israel and Peter Cave in Beirut
The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has begun talks with Israel's
Prime Minister, saying it is time for a new Middle East.
Dr Rice hopes her diplomatic mission will lay the ground work for enduring
peace in the region.
"A durable solution will be one that strengthens the forces of peace and the
forces of democracy in this region," she said.
Dr Rice said the people of the Middle East had lived in violence and fear
for too long.
"It is time for a new Middle East, it is time to say to those who do not
want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail, they will not."
The talks in Israel come on the 14th day of the conflict between Israel and
the Lebanese based militia, Hezbollah.
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says Israel will continue to fight the
militant group.
"We'll reach out for them. We'll stop them. We will not hesitate to take the
most severe measures against those who are aiming thousands of rockets and
missiles against innocent civilians, for one purpose: to kill them," he
said.
He says both the Lebanese and Israeli people are victims of Hezbollah's
brutality.
Mr Olmert says Israel will work with the United States to meet the
humanitarian needs of the Lebanese people.
But he made it clear there would be no immediate let-up in Israel's
offensive.
"Israel is determined to carry on the fight against Hezbollah," he said.
Dr Rice arrived in Jerusalem after her trip to Beirut and will also visit
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.
"I have no desire to be back in three weeks or three months or six months
when once again extremists have decided to use their advantages to
destabilise the region," she said.
Dr Rice has made clear she is not seeking a quick cease-fire and that any
solution should address the root causes of the conflict - for which
Washington and Israel blame Hezbollah and its backers in Iran and Syria.
Final evacuations
Officials in Beirut have begun loading the last Australian evacuees from
Lebanon.
So far fewer than 300 people have turned up for what Foreign Minister,
Alexander Downer, says will be the final Australian sponsored evacuation
vessel.
Two catamaran ferries which can each take about 200 people are being loaded
and will follow later today for Turkey.
An Embassy spokeswoman says extra vessels which can carry up to 2,000 people
are on stand-by if there is a last-minute rush, but they are unlikely to be
needed.
Bint Jbeil
On the battlefield, Israeli troops and tanks fought fierce clashes with
Hezbollah inside the guerrilla stronghold of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon.
The army said while Israeli forces had entered, they had yet to take
complete control of the town.
An Israeli air strike killed a family of seven, Lebanese security sources
said. Hezbollah said five guerrillas died in the past two days.
Israel reported two soldiers killed on Monday but said it had inflicted
dozens of casualties on Hezbollah.
A total of 404 people in Lebanon and 41 Israelis have been killed in the
conflict, ignited by Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Israel's army, which has also waged a military campaign in Gaza since June
28 to recover a soldier seized by Palestinian militants, believes it may
have a week to keep pounding Hezbollah before a deal is reached, security
sources say.
Among the issues on the table at Dr Rice's meetings are US demands Hezbollah
withdraw away from Israel's frontier, the deployment of an international
force alongside the Lebanese army in the area and the return of the two
soldiers.
Civilian suffering
Dr Rice and Mr Olmert are also expected to deal with what can be done to
ease the suffering for civilians in Lebanon, which estimates almost
one-fifth of its population has been displaced by Israeli bombing. Most of
the dead are civilians.
Mr Olmert said Israel was "very conscious" of the humanitarian needs of
civilians in Lebanon.
The United States backs the idea of a humanitarian corridor to get help to
the needy, an idea Israel says it could support.
One of the key sticking points for a cease-fire is the sequence of events
for a deal.
Many Lebanese politicians want a cease-fire first.
Israel wants Hezbollah to leave the border area immediately and free the
captured soldiers without conditions.
Many of the issues will be discussed at an international conference in Rome
on Wednesday.
But ground raids and air strikes have failed to stop Hezbollah firing around
1,200 rockets into northern Israeli towns and cities, where they have killed
17 civilians so far.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1696716.htm
2. How the UN legitimizes terrorists -
Chicago Tribune Op-ed
By Alan M. Dershowitz
July 25, 2006
If anyone wonders why the UN has rendered itself worse than irrelevant in
the Arab-Israeli conflict, all he or she need do is read UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan's July 20 statement. Annan goes to great pains to suggest
equal fault and moral equivalence between the rockets of Hezbollah and Hamas
that specifically target innocent civilians and the self-defense efforts by
Israel, which tries desperately, though not always successfully, to avoid
causing civilian casualties. In his statement, Annan never condemns, or even
mentions, terrorism, which is a root cause and precipitator of the conflict.
Even Annan was forced to acknowledge that "Hezbollah's provocative attack on
July 12 was the trigger of this particular crisis"; that Hezbollah is "deliberate[ly]
targeting ... Israeli population centers with hundreds of indiscriminate
weapons"; and that Israel has the "right to defend itself under Article 51
of the UN charter." But he doesn't stop there. He goes out of his way to
insist on equating Hezbollah's terrorists with Israeli military response,
which he labels "disproportionate" and "collective punishment." He condemns
both Hezbollah and Israel. He also criticizes Israel for its efforts at
preventing Qassam rocket attacks against its civilian populations, noting
that the Hamas rockets have produced no "casualties in the past month."
(This, of course, is not for lack of trying.) He ignores Hamas' long history
of terrorism against innocent civilians.
Annan then calls for an "immediate cessation of indiscriminate and
disproportionate violence" on both sides, again suggesting a moral
equivalence. Among the most immoral positions anyone can take is to suggest
a moral equivalence between morally different actions.
Part of the goal of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas is to gain moral
legitimacy for their terrorist tactics by having them equated with the
conventional military tactics used by democratic regimes. Only the morally
obtuse--or perverse--cannot recognize the difference between a terrorist
group that targets civilian population centers with anti-personnel weapons
designed to maximize civilian casualties and a democracy that seeks to
prevent terrorism by employing smart bombs designed to minimize civilian
casualties.
Annan knows better than to suggest a moral equivalence. He is fully aware of
the tactic employed by terrorists of launching their rockets from, and
hiding behind, civilian shields, so as to make democracies have to kill some
civilians to get at the terrorists.
But Annan heads an organization that is so anti-Israel that as the late Abba
Eban, the early Israeli ambassador to the UN, once put it: "If Algeria
proposed a resolution that the Earth was flat and that Israel has flattened
it, it would pass by a vote of 120 to 3, with 27 abstentions."
Many such resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly, including
the notorious one equating the Jewish national liberation movement with
"racism." Other one-sided resolutions have been passed by the General
Assembly legitimating terrorism. Only the U.S. veto--which does not operate
in the UN General Assembly--has prevented one-sided resolutions by the
Security Council.
If a space alien from a distant planet were to land at the UN, he would come
away with the impression that Israel is not only the sole offender in the
Middle East, but the worst offender in the entire world. He would single out
Israel for condemnation and exclude it from membership on many UN bodies, on
which Syria, Lebanon and Iran serve in positions of honor.
Annan himself has a long history of one-sided condemnations of Israel. In
March 2004, Annan "strongly condemned" Israel's targeted killing of Sheik
Ahmad Yassin, the terrorist leader of Hamas, without condemning Yassin for
his murderous actions or his organization for the murder of Jewish
civilians. In December 2003, Annan "strongly condemned" Israel's assault on
a Palestinian refugee camp where two gunmen were thought to be hiding. And
in 2005, he issued the most tepid of statements--expressing "dismay"--at
threats by Iran's president to "eliminate" Israel, a member nation of the
UN. The list goes on and on.
And even worse than the one-sided condemnations that ignore Hezbollah and
Hamas are the numerous statements that perversely suggest moral equivalence.
The UN peacekeepers on the Lebanese border have turned out to be
collaborators with Hezbollah, videotaping the Hezbollah kidnapping of three
Israeli soldiers in 2000 and then refusing to release the video--which could
have helped in the rescue--on the grounds that it might compromise their
"neutrality."
This is a real test for the UN. If it cannot--or will not--distinguish
between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that seeks to stop
the terrorism while minimizing civilian casualties, it has become part of
the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard and the author of
"Pre-emption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607250113jul25,0,1381784.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
3. Hastert lends Border Patrol his
helicopter to help agent - Washington Times
By Charles Hurt
Published July 25, 2006
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert traveled to the Southwest during the weekend
to survey for himself the porous borders that have become his party's
campaign battle cry and ended up having to loan one of his helicopters to
Border Patrol agents who found themselves short-handed.
The Illinois Republican was leading a delegation from Congress to a remote
outpost in Arizona called Camp Grip when a lone Border Patrol agent called
for backup, Mr. Hastert told The Washington Times. The agent had come across
fresh tracks crossing the border and a stash of more than 200 pounds of
marijuana.
Deep in the desert and a four-hour drive from the nearest Border Patrol
station, Camp Grip doesn't have a helicopter regularly stationed there. So,
agents grabbed machine guns and loaded into one of the four UH-60 Black Hawk
helicopters ferrying Mr. Hastert's delegation and flew out to back up the
agent.
"The border has become a sieve," Mr. Hastert said later. "We need to put
more Border Patrol guards in places like Camp Grip."
In a statement by the Department of Homeland Security on the border
incident, the lone agent had come "upon fresh foot sign and bicycle tracks
of several bicycle riders that had crossed near Red Tail Tank." He then
followed the tracks to "a wash where he discovered six bundles of marijuana
totaling 237.8 pounds."
The drugs were seized but no arrests were made, according to the report.
For Mr. Hastert, the trip -- which included stops in Yuma and Nogales,
Ariz., and El Paso, Texas -- confirmed his conviction that House Republicans
are right to demand that the borders are secured before other aspects of
immigration reform are addressed.
"We need to get that done before we do anything else," he said, flying in an
Air Force jet 40,000 feet above the sweltering desert.
The trip is part of a months-long effort by House Republicans to highlight
what they say are flaws in the Senate immigration bill, which would grant
citizenship rights to an estimated 12 million to 20 million. While that plan
has the support of Majority Leader Bill Frist and other key Republicans in
the Senate, Mr. Hastert and other House Republicans prefer to blame the
whole thing on Democrats.
"The Democrats support open borders," he said.
Mr. Hastert said the incident at Camp Grip highlights the need to secure the
borders not only to stop illegal immigration and protect against terrorist
infiltration, but also to stop the flow of drugs into the country.
"We have up to 16,000 kids every year die to drugs or drug violence," he
said. "If we ever lost that number in uniform, we'd have people marching in
the streets."
Mr. Hastert also said humanitarian concerns for border crossers are the
greatest in remote areas like those around Camp Grip, which was established
in 2002 after 23 illegals died trying to cross the desert.
"One of the problems they're having out there is that they have a 'coyote'
who's bringing them through the desert and just letting them go," he said.
"They're dead before you can even get to them."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060725-120340-4170r.htm
4. The sunset bills - Washington Times
Op-ed
July 25, 2006
In 1980, when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan pledged to eliminate the
Department of Education, federal budget outlays for education were less than
$15 billion. This year, the department's budget will be $84 billion. In
fact, by the end of September, the Bush administration will have spent 100
percent more on Education programs during its first five fiscal years ($324
billion) than the Clinton administration spent during its last five ($162
billion).
As President Reagan once observed: "No government ever voluntarily reduces
itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll
ever see on this earth!" This week, the House will consider two "sunset"
bills -- the aim of which is to change the immortal status of at least some
government programs. Both emerged last week from the Government Reform
Committee largely along party-line votes.
The Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act, which is
sponsored by Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, would establish a
12-member bipartisan commission to review all federal agencies at least once
every 12 years in order to determine their efficiency and public need.
Unless Congress reauthorized the agency, it would automatically be abolished
within a year of the commission's report.
Critics argue that opponents of an agency could eliminate it merely by
blocking its reauthorization. They also argue that a president and a
minority of either body of Congress could eliminate an agency by mustering
just over one-third of the House or Senate to sustain a presidential veto of
legislation reauthorizing the agency. However, before the Department of
Education or any other federal agency were to suffer such a fate, a
political debate would take place between its defenders and its opponents. A
dissatisfied public could exact electoral recriminations against the
victors.
The Government Efficiency Act, which is sponsored by Republican Rep. Todd
Tiahrt of Kansas, would provide for the establishment of a bipartisan
seven-member sunset commission whose proposals would receive fast-track
consideration in Congress "to reorganize, consolidate, abolish, expand or
transfer federal programs and agencies reviewed by the commission." In
addition to discretionary programs funded by the annual appropriations
process, the Tiahrt bill authorizes the commission to consider changes in
any federal program, including entitlement programs such as Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid.
Critics worry that a Republican president and a Republican Congress could
eliminate a program or an agency without the benefit of a single Democratic
vote. True. But in 1993, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress
imposed a massive tax increase and draconian budget cuts in defense without
a single Republican vote -- and electoral retribution was exacted the next
year.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060724-083923-7558r.htm
5. One Size Fits Nunn - Congress Daily AM
It is a virtual certainty that Republicans will lose House and Senate seats
in the Nov. 7 midterm elections.
The question is whether those losses will be small (single digits in the
House, one to two in the Senate), medium (10-14 in the House, three-five in
the Senate), large (15-20 in the House, six in the Senate, with control
shifting in both chambers) or extra large (more than 20 in the House, seven
or eight in the Senate).
Today, based on both national polls and looking at individual races, the
answer can be said to be fluctuating between medium and large, with the
Senate somewhat less likely to turn over than the House. But a Senate switch
is still very plausible.
Many factors and issues will be playing into this equation.
With an anticipated Gross Domestic Product growth rate of only 3.2 percent
in the second quarter -- following an impressive 5.6 percent rate in the
first quarter -- a slowing economy might be a key factor.
In the July 10-12 Associated Press/Ipsos national poll of 1,000 adults, only
38 percent of Americans approved of President Bush's handling of the
economy, the fourth month in a row and sixth out of nine that his approval
on the economy has been under 40 percent.
His economic rating was the same in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll,
conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults. Another 56 percent disapproved of
his handling of the economy. In March and April, this poll also found Bush's
economic rating under 40 percent.
Both of the new polls had error margins of 3.1 points.
Keeping in mind that people were giving Bush terrible ratings on handling
the economy even when it was growing at an impressive rate in the first
quarter of 2006, one wonders what it will be like with a GDP growth rate of
3.2 percent, as most economists forecast, and below 3 percent in the third
quarter, as many fear? Will people take a still dimmer view of Bush's
stewardship in office and will it hurt his party even more? Or will they see
it as confirmation of what they had already concluded and therefore make
little difference at the polls?
Arguably one key ingredient as to whether these losses will be on the small
or medium side -- allowing Republicans to keep their majorities -- or large
or extra large -- putting Democrats in power in one or both chambers -- will
be the extent voters attach ownership of the Iraq War to Bush.
The polls are very clear about public attitudes toward the decision to go to
war. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 41 percent agreed with the decision to attack Iraq
and 53 percent disagreed. Also, 38 percent said they were more confident
about the war reaching a successful conclusion and 53 percent felt less
confident.
For much of last fall, the focus was on the decision to invade Iraq, and the
use or misuse of intelligence to support the decision to invade. This month,
an average of 100 Iraqi civilians were killed each day, hardly a sign of
stability or progress. At the same time, the Iraq war's cost to U.S.
taxpayers surpassed $1,000 for every man, woman and child.
It's pretty safe to say that if the election focus is on the decision to go
to war, it would certainly boost Democratic chances of getting the large or
extra large gains, and a majority on one or both sides of the Capitol Dome.
But starting last November, with the call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for a
withdrawal of U.S. troops, the focus shifted from the decision to this
question: What do we do now? That is a much less dangerous place for the
president and Republican Party. "What now?" is a jump ball, politically
speaking, with no national consensus and neither party seemingly having the
upper hand.
When the NBC/WSJ poll gave respondents three options -- to maintain current
troop levels, reduce the number of troops without a timetable or reduce with
a timetable -- 35 percent supported maintaining current levels, 16 percent
were for reducing without a timetable and 38 percent were for withdrawing
with a timetable. In other words, people were all over the map.
Support for withdrawing with a timetable dipped slightly from the 41-43
percent level in the four previous polls. Maintaining the current level was
back up to where it was in the winter.
In short, it makes a big difference whether voters are judging based on the
decision to invade or whether it is on what course of action should be taken
next, with the latter very likely to minimize or at least moderate
Democratic gains.
A central part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has few strong
spokesmen on national security issues. They tried Murtha, but his political
instincts are highly suspect and his credibility is shot with all but the
liberal base after his recent appearance on "Meet the Press with Tim Russert."
For Democrats, the question should be where is former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.,
when you need him? By Charlie Cook
http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/congressdaily/
### |
