A Small Price

Check out what REPUBLICAN Congressman John Boehner had to say about the cost of dubya's war in Iraq:

There's a transcript at Talkingpointsmemo:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

To which Greg Sargent adds:

This is an obvious point, but it bears making again, anyway: It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to...

(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal

...while simultaneously...

(b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.

Leave it to a Republican to say that as of 9/13/07, 3,768 confirmed American deaths (not to mention the tens of thousands injured or maimed) are a "small price" to pay.

In the City Paper

RON PAUL! RON PAUL! THEY WROTE ABOUT RON PAUL!

Actually, it was Charlie Dietch.

And as far as I can tell, it seeks to answer the question: Who is this "Ron Paul guy, what are people saying about him - good and bad?"

While I'm not a Paul supporter (if I were, would that make me a "Paulist"? Just checking.), the article paints a balanced portrait - using sketches from supporters and detractors alike.

Maria the OPJ gets in a few digs:

Earlier this year, for example, South Sider Maria Lupinacci authored a post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" on the blog she co-writes, "2 Political Junkies" (2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com).

"Yeah, yeah, Republican candidate and darling of the Libertarian wing Ron Paul is good on Iraq," Luppinaci's post concedes. "But I just want to remind anyone who cares about women's reproduction freedom that he is anti-choice . . . I expect more from 'freedom-loving, keep-the-government-off-of-me' Libertarians. But, too often I find that the same Libertarian males who kick and scream over the thought of the government taking one thin dime of their money have no problem whatsoever with the thought of that very same government crawling up into a woman's womb." Lupinacci also questioned the wisdom of trusting issues like gay rights and even product safety to the states, and concluded:

"I say: Fuck Him."

You can find that blog post here, by the way. Dietch gives the Congressman a chance to respond as this follows right after:

Paul accepts such criticism as his due.

"There's a big difference in paying a lot of lip service to supporting the Constitution and actually going out and supporting it with your vote," says Paul. "The Constitution stands for something and I will support it. I'm not going to go out there with my vote and go along just to get along."

On the otherside of the aisle, there's my buddy Mark Rauterkus:

"He's definitely the best candidate out there right now for this country," says Mark Rauterkus of the South Side, a vice chair of the local Libertarian Party and a fixture on local ballots. "I think he's a libertarian through and through, and I am certainly supporting him."

Though there may be a question as to how libertarian Paul is. This is further down the page:

Some libertarians, meanwhile, say Paul isn't libertarian enough, or that on hot-button issues -- abortion, gay marriage and immigration -- Paul is nothing but a Republican in reformer's clothing.

Paul's stand on immigration, for example, strikes some as odd, given libertarian support for a free-market economy. Paul's belief that gay marriage and abortion should be determined by the states, meanwhile, doesn't satisfy libertarians who think the government has no place interfering with people's medical decisions or in bedrooms. [emphasis in original]

In the course of the article, we hear from Bill Steigerwald:

"I like him because he's the most anti-Bush Republican running. He's bashing the Republicans more than the Democrats are. He's showing that he's a Republican in party registration only."

And Bill Green:

"Local GOP consultant Bill Green attended Paul's Cranberry appearance in early August. He likened the experience of walking through the Sheraton parking lot as "going to see Jerry Garcia . . . I don't know that it will amount to much more than a few feel-good affirmation rallies, but he's obviously touching a chord.

"His supporters seem to be a collection of people who can't find any other place to go," says Green. "Certain things he says appeal to certain people, and they sometimes belong in very different groups . . . A lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds are going to say, 'Hey, he's talking to me. Somebody is finally talking to me.'

"Checking out the cars, I noticed license plates from about a dozen different states, they caravanned in just to see him," Green adds. "They're true believers. They are the same 'super patriots' that Pat Buchanan attracted."

Good article - check it aht.

While you're there, go read this piece on by Chris Potter on a political cartoon exhibit opening on the 14th at the Three Rivers Arts Festival Gallery on Liberty Avenue dahn-tahn.

American Caricature is a form of intervention, where international cartoonists get U.S. viewers into a room and hold up a mirror to them. The show features 76 works by 37 artists from a dozen countries (including the U.S.). Not surprisingly, most of the work comments on Iraq and the war on terror -- although, sadly, the show lacks any Middle Eastern perspectives. "It's a weakness of the show," Huck admits. But no matter what their nationality, Huck says, contributors felt, "This is long overdue.

Can't wait.

More On Republican Hypocrisy

This past June 21, a letter was sent to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee. In that letter, this paragraph appeared:

Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidence that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm. These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness. [emphasis added]

I bet you're wondering who wrote (or at least signed) the letter. I'll give you a hint. Here's where the letter's found.

Yes, it was Senator David Vitter. The same David Vitter mentioned in this AP news article:

A former New Orleans prostitute who will be featured in Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine appeared at his office Tuesday to accuse Sen. David Vitter of having a sexual relationship with her in 1999. Wendy Ellis told reporters that Vitter visited her two to three times a week for sexual relations between July and November 1999.

For the record, Vitter has denied the claims and no evidence (financial records, photos etc) was produced at the press conference.

Please note that this prostitute is from New Orleans. Senator Vitter already apologised for a "serious sin" when his phone number was discovered in connection to a Washington DC madam. Different city, different prostitute.

But this isn't the first time we've heard about Wendy Ellis, who worked under the name Wendy Cortez. Take a look at this. It's from March of 2004:

For the first time, Congressman David Vitter has spoken out publically about allegations that he had an 11-month affair with a known prostitute named Wendy Cortez.

On WSMB radio last Saturday, a caller who identified himself as Elwood asked Vitter about charges made by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee in the Weekly that the then-State Representative had had an affair with a known prostitute in the French Quarter.

Elwood said, "Would you be willing to sign an affidavit that you have never known, met or had relations with one Wendy Cortez?"

Vitter responded, "I think you know that that allegation is absolutely and completely untrue...I have said that on numerous occasions...I'll say that in any forum...Unfortunately, that's just crass Louisiana politics, now that I am running for the Senate. I have made that clear that it is all completely untrue...And, it's obviously politically motivated."

Congressman Vitter had previously refused any comment on the charges. The story appeared in this newspaper just days after Vitter dropped out of the race for governor in June of 2002. The Louisiana Weekly published allegations that Cortez, a known prostitute, claimed that she had an 11-month affair with Vitter, a state representative at the time.

What did we learn from this article? That the charge had been made in 2004 by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee and that this story's been known since at least June of 2002.

So much for Vitter's personal hypocrisy. I do want to remind everyone what when David Vitter returned to DC in mid-July, he was invited to apologize to the Senate Republicans in a closed luncheon.

What happned then?

The Senators from God's Own Party welcomed him back with a standing ovation.

More Republican Hypocrisy.

An Announcement

I had a chat with Maria (the OPJ) this evening.

She told me she's got a few computer/internet challenges to deal with and probably won't be blogging for a while.

She hopes to be back soon.

Pintek, Petraeus, and Moveon.org.

This is the followup for this posting from last night. It's a little complicated. Bear with me, I'll get it all in. Mike Pintek, political conservative, spoke with in-house WPXI/PCNC political analyst Bill Green (another political conservative - a great idea if you want just one position discussed) about an ad that moveon.org placed in the New York Times. The ad was about General Petreaus and what he might or might not say to Congress yesterday.

Pintek could have been discussing the testimony, but he chose instead to focus on an ad.

Ok. Let's start with the ad that Pintek found so offensive. Here's the text:

Cooking the books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of the troops in Iraq, said "We say we have achieved progress and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head - not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the last three months than in any other summer we've been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence is decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petreaus won't admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won't hear what Americans are desparate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petreaus has actually said that American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petreaus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Ok, so they got a bit snarky at the end and if you head over to their webpage, you'll see all the actual confirming evidence supporting their position. Not that it would have mattered to Pintek. The ad was enough to send him off the rails completely. He spun like a music-box ballerina throughout the segment. And I'm surprised that all that spinning didn't create a wind strong enough to push Bill Green out of his chair.

He declared, with no evidence, that moveon.org was speaking for the Democratic party. He said that it's a:

very left wing organization, ostensibly representing the Democratic party. I think that's the impression they wanted to leave.

I am so glad Mike went with "Democratic party" instead of the infantile "Democrat party." Good for him.

But look, he "thinks" that's the impression moveon wanted to leave. But for the rest of the segment, moveon was speaking for all Democrats - well to Mike, at least. It's his way to pin an ad by an organization of 3.3 million people onto a major political party of 72 million people.

The spinning continued. He dragged Congressman Altmire's office into the act, too. Mike had Altmire on Night Talk sometime ago. The Congressman had just returned from Iraq and had met General Petreaus. Pintek said Almire was "very impressed" with the General and that while the situation there "wasn't perfect" there had been "progress in Iraq."

He wanted to get the Congressman's reaction to the ad. So he called the office and got a call back from the Congressman's spokeswoman. Here's what he said then:

This is to be attributed to her, but it comes from Congressman Altmire's office. This is in essense what it says. He says moveon.org has crossed the line of appropriate political discourse with this ad. It's offensive and misleading and does not help those who are trying to come to a timely resolution to the situation in Iraq.[emphasis added]

He said a few seconds later that Congressman Altmire was the "only democrat that I've heard today to condemn the ad."

Note the spin. The thing from the phone conversation was attributed to the Congressman's spokeswoman but Mike does his best to pin it (again with no evidence) on the Congressman himself.

Par for the course, I guess.

By the way, here's the statement from the Congressman about General Petreaus testimony:

After my meeting with Gen. Petraeus in Baghdad two weeks ago, I was confident that he would recommend a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. In his statement today, Gen. Petraeus did mention the possibility of a small drawdown; however, I am disappointed that the majority of such a drawdown would not begin for several months and that, one year from now, we will remain at pre-surge levels with no end in sight. A policy that maintains our military presence in Iraq at pre-surge levels—basically a stay the course policy—is in stark contrast to nearly every other recent report on Iraq, including last week's independent reports issued by the GAO and Gen. Jones.

I can see why Mike Pintek wouldn't want to discuss that.

Breaking -

Congressman Altmire's office reacts to moveon.org ad on PCNC's Night Talk with Mike Pintek.

Still nailing down the details - will blog on what I know in the morning.

Gen Petraeus This Week - Some Things to Keep In Mind

First there's this from the Washington Post by Karen DeYoung.

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Which triggered this analysis from Josh Marshall:

DeYoung's article gives us a couple bits of information that help us start to unravel the mystery. First, the military command in Baghdad is in a spat with the GAO, which the generals accuse of using a flawed methodology. (GAO's analysis basically disagreed with them on all particulars.) DeYoung's piece includes the very telling detail that the GAO is using the same methodology that the CIA and the DIA favor. So it would seem that it's not only a question of the government versus outside observers. The military command in Baghdad sounds like it's completely isolated even within the US government on how to compute the numbers.

More recently, Marshall pointed out that Petraeus' methology itself is classified:

In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them. All they'll say is that they're very good. Or in some cases that there's X percentage drop over the course of the surge. Or an isolated number here or there.

But actual hard numbers? Going back over the last couple years? For some reason we're not allowed to see those.

Perhaps Petraeus and Crocker will sit down tomorrow and share all this data as part of their presentation. But if not, this is the issue. What possible security need is served by keeping this data secret? And with all we've been through, can anyone believe that if the numbers were solid that we'd wouldn't be being buried in data right now? [emphasis added]

Much like the "proof" that Saddam actually had WMD just before the invasion. That he somehow (by truck convoy or plane - the story keeps shifting) got them safely tucked away in the Bekaa valley in Syria. Jack Kelly had a whole column on it February, 2006 where he ends things with a tart:

Those who have bet their political futures that Saddam had no WMD may be starting to sweat.

If it's true and the primary cause of dubya's war was verified, then we certainly would have been hearing about it from all levels of the administration.

Since we didn't, it's safe to assume the whole Bekaa Valley story is crap.

And since we're not hearing solid numbers heading up to Petraeus' speaking to Congress, Josh Marshall is probably right, something's wrong.

And meanwhile the number of dead continue to rise.

Bob Schieffer's commentary is a good place to end.

For months now, the administration has been telling us, let's wait until we hear from General Petraeus before we decide where to go next in Iraq.

Well, tomorrow we hear.

The atmosphere is much like the time during the Vietnam War, when the commander then, General William Westmoreland, was brought home to answer the question: Are we winning?

He assured us we were, and the government offered a blizzard of statistics to back him up. They weren't wrong. They were just irrelevant.

All we really learned then is that we were asking the wrong question. When we have to ask, "are we winning?" we're probably losing. Victory is always obvious.

The right question would have been: Is it worth the cost?

America eventually concluded it was not, and we left the war.

Let me preempt that question to General Petraeus. We haven't lost this war, but we're not winning it. We're hanging on. Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.

Instead of that question, let's hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?

And here's a follow-up: When the Iraqi parliament went on vacation during August, I gave up on trying to help them find a way to have an effective government. They have to do that. What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer.

To me, that's the real question.

I wonder if any member of Congress will be asking Gen Petraeus whether dubya's war is worth the cost in lives and money.

A Jack Kelly Tradition

As it's Sunday, Jack Kelly's got a column in the Post-Gazette.

Not sure what to make of it, really, as he seems to be travelling in two directions. On the one hand, he's pointing out somewhat negatively the low percentage of veterans among the members of both houses of Congress:

What Congress does or doesn't do in response to Gen. Petraeus' report largely could determine whether we win or lose. But the number of senators and representatives who are veterans -- that is to say, who have the experience to make an informed judgment about what Gen. Petraeus has to say -- is the lowest it's been in half a century.

Only 29 percent of senators and just 23 percent of congressmen have worn their country's uniform, according to the Military Officers Association of America. That's down from 68 percent of senators and 48 percent of representatives in 1991, noted Washington Post reporter Peter Baker in an Aug. 24 article.

Here's Baker's article, by the way.

But J-Kel writes:

Most of our presidents have worn the uniform. Twelve of the 42 were generals. But having a Congress composed chiefly of people who have never served is actually a return to normalcy.

Virtually every able-bodied male of military age served during World War II. The Korean War, the Cold War and the Vietnam War kept the draft in place, troop levels high and (until Vietnam) veterans' status prestigious. But for most of our history, our armed forces have been small and all-volunteer, and few in Congress had served in them.

So it's normal for there to be so few veterans in Congress - but that's not a good thing now. Not sure I follow. But then there's a lot of things Jack Kelly says that I don't follow.

Kelly seems to be saying that because there are so few veterans in Congress, they might not be able to understand what General Petraeus will be telling them and they might, just might, not make the right decision about Iraq.

Of course it goes without saying that J-Kel knows what's the right thing to do in Iraq.

Though one would think that in a democracy (even a represenatative democracy such as ours) our elected officials should be working to do what the people want. And what do the people want? They surely don't want this war. According to a recent CNN poll (8/6-8/07) the American people oppose the war by nearly 2-to-1 (64% to 33%).

The same thing can be said for a troop withdrawal. According to a recent CBS poll (8/8-12/07) 61% of the American people want the number of troops to be reduced or removed alltogether. Only 30% feel the numbers should remain steady or be increased. That's another 2-to-1 against the status quo.

So after dismissing the idea of a draft (which would, of course, increase the number of veterans in Congress - though not in the way I suspect Kelly would want) he offers up a "modest proposal" in his last paragraph:

We can spread the burden of military service more equitably and produce a Congress that better understands what it takes to win in war without a draft. All we need do is make it a condition for holding federal office that a candidate have an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces.

That's right - all we need to do is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Let's take a look to see what the Constitution says about the qualifications for being elected to Congress.

For the House, It's Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2:

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

For the Senate, it's Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

And for President, it's Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Nothing in there about military service.

My guess is that Jack Kelly, lover of American Democracy, would rather have the Constitution changed to get a Congress more amenable to his views on the war than have a Congress that actually does what the people want them to do.

Delano's Den

Hey, it's good to see Jon Delano blogging at Delano's Den again.

I noticed Jon's previous blog posting was on June 30. I hope that doesn't mean we're looking at a blog post every two months from now on, does it?

This Administration's Cherrypicking Numbers - AGAIN?

From yesterday's Washington Post:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

But here's the fun part. The methology used by the GAO is also used by the intelligence community:

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

But we all know what this administration really feels, deep down in its collective guts: Statistics only reflect "reality" and "reality" has a well known liberal bias.

Meanwhile the killing continues.

Luciano Pavarotti Has Passed Away

According to the AP, he'd been suffering with pancreatic cancer for sometime.

And this, according to the same AP story, was his final public performance:

Fitting that it was Nessun Dorma from Turandot.

My mother is a HUGE Pavarotti fan and so I am sure the news will bring more than a few tears to her old Italian eyes. Every Christmas she got from one of us the latest Pavarotti LP if there was one. Or perhaps an older recording that didn't yet have. Or a book about him. Or a poster. Sundays (and many Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, you ge the picture) the house, to my utter teenage embarrassment, was filled with that voice. The larger than life Modenesi (sp?) tenor voice that my mother adored. This is like losing a long time family friend.

Domingo? Carreras? Both immensely talented, my mother would say, but neither could sing quite like Pavarotti.

Sorry for your loss, mom. I really am.

Around the Burghosphere

Pittsburgh may only be the third bloggiest city, but there are days when it's the number one snarkiest city:

The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat reveals Ravenstahl's "vision thing."

Tunesmith & Anthony "winehouse" some well known Pittsburghers.

Maybe we should run a poll on which winehoused Burgher will be the first to end up in rehab? On second thought, I say "no, no, no" to that idea.
.

Pgh. City Council Hearing on Police Promotions & Domestic Violence

WHAT: Post Agenda Hearing on Police & Domestic Violence (Followup to the Public Hearing held in June)
WHEN: Monday, September 10, 2007, 1:30 PM
WHERE: Pittsburgh City Council Chambers, City-County Building, 414 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Corner of Grant & Forbes, 5th Floor)

From the official media advisory:

At the specific request of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women's rights organizations, the Post Agenda Hearing before Pittsburgh City Council on domestic violence and the police has been set for Monday, September 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM in Pittsburgh City Council Chambers, Fifth Floor, City-County Building, 414 Grant St. in Pittsburgh.

"Thanks to an extraordinary commitment from Council President Doug Shields and his staff, as well as volunteers and staff from throughout the women's rights community, this post agenda hearing will provide the best guidance available to create new policies for the police and the city of Pittsburgh to eliminate the scourge of domestic violence," said Jeanne K.C. Clark of the Squirrel Hill Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

"Pittsburghers – both women and men – were outraged when three of the four recent police promotions went to officers with histories of domestic violence," continued Clark. "But the official police response that this was a private matter, and that these officers were only human, was even worse, showing the ignorance of the police leadership on the often fatal issue of domestic violence. It was clear to that serious education and policy changes were necessary to make Pittsburgh a city in which women can feel safe.

"Hundreds of hours of planning and discussion have gone into creating the agenda for this hearing, and nationally respected leaders will be testifying on the issues of domestic violence generally, and how police should be recruited, trained and supervised," continued Clark. "None of this would have been possible without the support and work of Council President Shields and his staff. And this is just the beginning – after the hearing, we expect to offer specific policy changes to prevent any recurrence of the promotions, and to move Pittsburgh's government into the forefront of enlightened polices on domestic violence."

The public is urged to attend the hearing on Monday. As a post agenda hearing, there will be no provision for citizens to testify, but there will be an opportunity for Pittsburghers to communicate their concerns to their elected officials.

I've heard that there are currently some 30 Pittsburgh police officers who have PFA's out against them that we know of. I say "that we know of" because unlike many other cities, Pittsburgh does not do random checks of court records to know if a police officer has a domestic violence problem. This despite the fact that a 1996 federal law prohibits individuals -- including police officers -- from owning or using a firearm if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.

Moreover, Pittsburgh does not distinguish between domestic violence and other violent crimes in their record keeping so no one can even say how big a problem this is in our city.

Our, um, "inattentiveness" to this problem not only hurts the citizens of Pittsburgh, it also hurts the good police officers and detectives who are passed over for promotions which go to police who don't deserve them.

And, while it's terrifying for any woman to have an abusive partner, imagine how much more terrifying it is for a woman who's partner is allowed to carry a weapon and knows where the women's shelters are and that the woman would have to report the crime to their partner's buddies and coworkers.

If anyone needs any more convincing on how bad it can get for women when a cop goes bad, I suggest you check out recent stories on a Pennsylvania State trooper who used his position to stalk women or the RI woman who when she reported her own rape to the police had the officer who she was accusing of rape show up to take her report. Perhaps not surprisingly, he left out any mention of himself being the accused rapist in his report.

A Wise Word About Larry Craig

From Garrison Keillor.

His beginning:

You do not want people to think of the Republican Party every time they step into a public toilet and so the gentleman had to go and why not dispatch him immediately? Why make him stumble through a week of contrition on cable TV and explain himself into an even deeper hole? Nonetheless, it was stunning, the suddenness with which a prominent man can be hurled from his perch by his own friends and with less ceremony than if he were a convenience store clerk caught taking the plastic wrappers off magazines.

What did him in was not his transgression so much as the fact that it was cartoonish and easily worked up into jokes. The next morning on YouTube there was a video of the gentleman endorsing a presidential hopeful, with the title "Senator Craig Taps His Foot for Mitt Romney," and he had become a punch line, like Bill Clinton. ("They're having a Presidents Day sale at the men's store -- pants are half off.")

And the end:

It's an old refrain, but true: In 20 years, the sexual issues and tensions that led to Sen. Craig's downfall will simply not matter anymore. They don't matter much to young people. When enough people my age are gone from the world, the world will change. Calcium supplements will always be with us, and retirement, but a person's sexual interests will not be an issue.

Garrison Keillor's 65, by the way.

Cocktails for a Cause

WHAT: Cocktails for a Cause
WHEN: Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 5:30 PM - 8:30 PM
WHERE: Doublewide Grill, 2339 E. Carson St., Pittsburgh PA 15203

70% of all beer sales to benefit Planned Parenthood

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Last Night

In case you missed it, Crooks and Liars has the video and a transcript.

So does MSNBC.

Go read it/watch it. Here's how it ends:

Just over 500 days remain in this presidency. Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.

Consider the singular fraudulence of this president's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.
Consider how this president has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.

And consider again how this president has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November." The goal in Iraq is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence." Consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.

In the context of all that now, consider these next 500 days.

Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end. Even if it means your resignation. Even if it means your impeachment. Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term. Even if it means a Democratic Congress and those true patriots among the Republicans standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.

This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days.

Resign or be impeached.

Thank you, Arlen Specter!

If Pennsylvania's own Senator Arlen Specter's advice to fellow Republican Senator Larry Craig that he should try to withdraw his guilty plea in the infamous men's room incident has anything to do with Craig's decision to "rethink" his resignation from the Senate, then I say:

THANK YOU, ARLEN!
By all means let's have one more Republican "family values" hypocrite in a scandal that drags on as long as possible.

HA!

You're all in denial on this (and that includes all the C-SPAN callers who seem to overlook the fact that the guy PLEAD GUILTY).

Anyone else in denial here, please view the following and tell me that Crag wasn't thinking of doing more to Clinton than impeaching him:




NASTY!

Statistics - True and False

Here's the latest from Josh Micah Marshall over at Talkingpointsmemo.

The three articles he mentions with solid information are:

AP:

Civilian deaths rose slightly in August from July's figure as a huge suicide attack in the north two weeks ago offset security gains elsewhere, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.

U.S. deaths remained well below figures from last winter when the U.S began dispatching 30,000 additional troops to Iraq.

At least 1,809 civilians were killed last month, compared to 1,760 in July, based on figures compiled by the AP from official Iraqi reports. That brings to 27,564 the number of Iraqi civilians killed since AP began collecting data on April 28, 2005.

LATImes:

Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.

In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior. The statistics appear to indicate that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little to curb civilian bloodshed, despite U.S. military statements to the contrary.

NYTimes:

Newly released statistics for Iraqi civilian deaths in August reflect the strikingly mixed security picture that has emerged from a gradual six-month increase in American troop strength here: the number of deaths across the country rose by about 20 percent since July, but in the capital itself, the number dropped sharply.

The figures, provided by Iraqi Interior Ministry officials on Saturday, mirrored the geographic pattern of the troop increase, which is focused on Baghdad. The national rise in mortality is partly a result of the enormous death toll, more than 500, in a truck bomb attack that struck a Yazidi community in August north of the capital, outside the areas directly affected by the additional troops.

And one from me. From the LATimes:

The U.S. military buildup that was supposed to calm Baghdad and other trouble spots has failed to usher in national reconciliation, as the capital's neighborhoods rupture even further along sectarian lines, violence shifts elsewhere and Iraq's government remains mired in political infighting.

In the coming days, U.S. military and government leaders will offer Congress their assessment of the 6-month-old plan's results. But a review of statistics on death and displacement, political developments and the impressions of Iraqis who are living under the heightened military presence reaches a dispiriting conclusion.

Despite the plan, which has brought an additional 28,500 U.S. troops to Iraq since February, none of the major legislation that Washington had expected the Iraqi parliament to pass into law has been approved.

The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has increased, not decreased, according to the United Nations' International Organization for Migration and Iraq's Ministry for Displacement and Migration.

Military officials say sectarian killings in Baghdad are down more than 51% and attacks on civilians and security forces across Iraq have decreased. But this has not translated into a substantial drop in civilian deaths as insurgents take their lethal trade to more remote regions. Last month, as many as 400 people were killed in a bombing in a village near the Syrian border, the worst bombing since the war began in March 2003. In July, 150 people were reported killed in a village about 100 miles north of Baghdad.

Read them all. It'll be interesting to see (as Josh points out) who'll be quoting which stat.

Troops Thought They Were Within The Law

From The NYTimes:

Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by United States soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.

The documents, released today by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 cases. They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

Why not? Their Commander-in-Chief has been acting outside of the law (while declaring he hasn't been) for years. Dubya's corruption has trickled down to the boots on the ground in his bloody war.

If they are punished for his actions, it'll be another stain on his legacy.

A Few Notes on The Surge

Now that we know that Bush make a surprise visit to Iraq this weekend, it might be a good idea to take a look at some of the stuff the wingnuts in the area definitely won't be talking about.

(h/t to Think Progress on the link)

On the supposed drop in insurgent attacks. Too bad a great deal of the dirty work has already been accomplished. From Newsweek:

When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won.

Seems that the Shiites have been doing that for some time now.