Democrats should not behave irresponsibly just because they believe that Republicans will behave irresponsibly the next time Republicans come to power.

Posted at January 22, 2007 12:08 PM in response to Does PAGO make sense?

Democrats should not behave irresponsibly just because they believe that Republicans will behave irresponsibly the next time Republicans come to power.

Posted at January 22, 2007 12:07 PM in response to Does PAGO make sense?

Muqtada al-Sadr is, or is believed by most Shiites to be, a descendant of Muhammed. If the U.S. kills, injures or captures al-Sadr, I believe Iraq's Shiite population will be inflamed. If the U.S. clears the way for the Iraqi military to kill or capture al-Sadr, will that not also inflame Iraqis?

Posted at December 21, 2006 12:42 PM in response to Surging into the Abyss

Most media accounts have overlooked the hawkish language that the new report uses to describe Iran. It's hauntingly similar to the language Bush used four years ago in describing Iraq.

From the report:

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the earth." The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.

As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.

Posted at September 5, 2006 12:09 PM in response to Bush's Goldilocks Moment: Terror Just Right

When Bill O'Reilly interviewed Bush in September of 2004, Bush said that he opposed putting the military on the border. Here's a transcript from News Hounds.

Posted at May 16, 2006 6:05 AM in response to Controlling the Border?

In the Amerian Prospect article--very good article, BTW--linked in the original post, Ms. Graff wrote, "Alabama is the only state in the country where not one gay person has a right."

Can someone elaborate on what that means? Is there a provision of AL law saying gay people have no rights? Is there a right gay people in MS have that gay people in AL lack? 

Posted at February 22, 2006 1:00 PM in response to Whither same-sex marriage?

One section of the explication linked at the beginning of the post is titled "The President Supports Allowing Employers To Make Higher Contributions To The HSAs Of Chronically Ill Employees."

I don't understand the expected ramifications of that proposal, and I hope that one of the bloggers might discuss it in the coming weeks.

Assuming that employers act solely out of their own economic interest--an assumption that I know is not universally true--why would an employer want to do that?

Posted at February 1, 2006 2:23 PM in response to Incentives Matter

You can't just repeal it. Many private insurers have terminated the drug coverage portions of their policies, including Medi-Gap policies.

Many insured persons have canceled private drug coverage, because they became eligible for Part D. Those people with preexisting conditions will not be able to satify underwriters in order to get a new policy.

You can amend it, but you can't repeal it.

Posted at January 27, 2006 1:06 PM in response to Save Ourselves!

The new memo leaves unanswered the question of why the Bush Administration did not get warrants. The only answer I'm aware of is from Gonzalez, who said it was more efficient to skip the warrant process. That does not ring true to me.

Posted at January 23, 2006 11:58 AM in response to Surveillance Law, 101

I just heard Nina Totenberg on NPR's All Things Considered say that she had spoken with an attorney in Louisiana who had a meeting with Clement this morning in Clement's office. Totenberg stressed that Clement would have had time to get on a plane after the meeting and get to D.C., but Totenberg seemed to doubt that Clement is the one.

Posted at July 19, 2005 4:06 PM in response to Something Doesn't Fit