20070427 News Clips

News Clips

April 27^th, 2007

State News

Activists ready to wade in on 'marriage' issue

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070426-114025-8798r.htm

Activists on both side of the homosexual "marriage" issue are ready with legislation and additional lawsuits no matter which way the Maryland Court of Appeals rules on a pivotal case.

"Everybody is just waiting with bated breath," said Sen. Janet Greenip, Anne Arundel County Republican. "The thing that bothers me is this is a very small minority trying to dictate how we do business for everybody."

The appeals court's seven judges heard arguments in December on whether they should allow homosexual "marriage" but have yet to rule on the case.

Delegate Don Dwyer Jr., Anne Arundel County Republican and routine sponsor of the bill that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, could not be reached for comment because he is out of the country.

Carter Wants BGE Special Session

http://wbal.com/news/story.asp?articleid=56967

Last year, state lawmakers met in a special session to address rising BGE electric rates, and electric deregulation. Now a Baltimore City delegate who is running for mayor is calling for another special session this year.

Democratic Delegate Jill Carter today sent a letter to Governor Martin O'Malley asking for the special session, even as a 50% BGE rate hike is due to take effect June 1.

The long and short of the governor’s first 100 days

For some, O’Malley has moved too fast; for others, he has gone too slowly; and hes been praised for changing the tone in Annapolis

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215227_32323.shtml

At a photo op this week for a bill to protect the diamondback terrapin, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. drew a comparison to the Maryland state reptile and the O’Malley administration.

It doesn’t proceed as fast as one would like it to, but at least it doesn’t move backward, he quipped.

Time is money and we can’t afford it, said Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley (R-Dist. 4) of New Market. And considering so many of his appointments served in the Glendening administration, Brinkley said, he was surprised O’Malley needed the time.

Brinkley’s counterpart in the House, Minority Leader Anthony J. O’Donnell, was more pointed.

He’s lip-synced his way through the first 100 days, said O’Donnell (R-Dist. 29C) of Lusby. He makes Ashlee Simpson and Milli Vanilli look like the Vienna Boys Choir.

Red letter day for the environment

Governor makes environmental rules law with the stroke of a pen

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215315_32330.shtml

Gov. Martin O’Malley on Tuesday signed into law several key pieces of legislation aimed at protecting the environment, as well as a much-disputed measure to restore voting rights to ex-felons.

Maryland officially became the 11th state to adopt California-style emission standards on new vehicles with the signing of the so-called clean car bill. The law takes effect with cars sold in 2011 and requires vehicles to be more fuel-efficient and produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions.

Another bill among the 174 that became law Tuesday will allow any convicted felons who have completed their sentence to regain their voting rights. Proponents say the law will help rehabilitated criminals become productive members of society, while opponents say the loss of voting rights should be a life penalty.

We think that voting is a right that you’re granted automatically, said Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley (R-Dist. 4) of New Market. Being convicted of a felony is one of those things that removes those rights.

Environmentalists say Intercounty Connector taints O’Malley’s green moves

Governor also agrees to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215330_32334.shtml

Gov. Martin O’Malley has signed an executive order creating a commission to develop a plan to handle climate change and added Maryland to the list of Northeast states attacking carbon dioxide pollution.

Protecting our communities from climate change is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue it is a Maryland issue, O’Malley (D) said in a statement.

In search of fiscal sanity by Barry Rascovar

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/poliras204125_32324.shtml

It could have been a moment for Marylands new administration to send a strong message about fiscal responsibility and the coming bad news on taxes.

Instead, Gov. Martin O’Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot have ducked the chance to deliver an early wake-up call regarding the states deteriorating financial picture.

Politics triumphed over policy. O’Malley and Franchot have decided to keep the state property tax steady at 11.2 cents (per $100 of assessed value), though that wont raise enough money to pay all the interest and principle on bonds floated by Maryland.

Murray D. Levy: Facing up to our structural deficit

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/policol204124_32323.shtml

Many people have concerns about Maryland’s budget, asking, What is a structural deficit, and why all of sudden is it a problem?

The structural deficit occurs in the operating budgets, not the capital budget. It is helpful to think of it as an unsustainable budget, in that the programs Maryland has committed to funding will cost more than the taxes we collect. We are spending $1.10 for every $1 we receive in taxes, and without change, this continues into the foreseeable future. It’s a problem, and a big one.

Losing race makes for a winning documentary

St. Mary’s College student who worked on McKay’s Senate race captures a slice of Maryland politics on film

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215218_32322.shtml

Last year’s state Senate race pitting Roy P. Dyson against former St. Mary’s County Commissioner President Thomas F.McKay figured to be one of the most competitive in the state as Republicans put the incumbent in their crosshairs.

The challenger possessed the key ingredients to unseat Dyson: strong name recognition, more than twice as much money, endorsements from top party figures and a structured campaign strategy.

Yet, Dyson (D-Dist. 29) of Great Mills walloped McKay, the son of a former state senator, 64 percent to 36 percent.

So was born “The Close Race That Wasn’t Close: The Story of the Tommy McKay for Maryland 2006 State Senate Campaign,” a documentary produced by St. Mary’s College of Maryland senior Elizabeth Lewis, who worked on McKay’s campaign and who recently completed a one-year term as president of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans.

Reporters Notebook

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215251_32325.shtml

Veteran state police officer seeks answer on abrupt Garrett transfer

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-md.ca.richardson27apr27,0,1183404.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Lt. Dean Richardson has been with the Maryland State Police for 35 years, 28 of them at the Westminster barracks. He has been the station's commander since 2004.

He said yesterday that he can't understand why the state police abruptly informed him last week he would be transferred to the McHenry barracks in Garrett County - a two-hour-and-45-minute drive from his New Windsor area home.

Tour gives O'Malley bird's-eye view of APG

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.ha.apg27apr27,0,7381627.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

To better understand the sweeping impact of the nationwide military base expansion on Aberdeen Proving Ground, Gov. Martin O'Malley boarded an Army helicopter yesterday and toured the 72,000-acre facility in Harford County from the air.

From the jump seat of the Huey, O'Malley, clad in a brown bomber jacket with an Air National Guard insignia, viewed the sites for the estimated $750 million in new construction at the proving ground, as well as buildings set for demolition.

Harford County Executive David R. Craig, who went along for the helicopter ride, said the tour would "show the governor what is going to happen on base. It will be the engine that will keep Maryland's economy going for years."

What's in it for Ehrlich's new boss? By Laura Vozzella

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.vozzella27apr27,0,5553455.column?coll=bal-local-columnists

I can see why Bob Ehrlich, a competitive guy, would want to reclaim the governor's mansion four years from now. And why, given the ridiculous cost of campaigns, he'd start raising money now.

One of them, Henry Fawell, said the leading-Marylanders line refers to Ehrlich's weekend job on WBAL radio. (That gig is mentioned in the letter, but later.)

"I think if you listen to the callers who call his radio show in droves," Fawell said, "it's quite clear that thousands of Marylanders still believe in him."

Sorry for slavery by Blair Lee

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polilee204127_32325.shtml

When it comes to apologizing for slavery there are two schools of thought. The pro-apology folks argue that no other group in American history was so badly mistreated: Africans arrived in chains, were systematically dehumanized and were reduced to chattel, like horses and mules, for field work and breeding.

Japanese Americans who were wrongfully interned during World War II got apologies and reparations. Blacks got nothing. There’s a Holocaust Memorial on the Mall protesting Europeans killing Europeans in Europe. Blacks were enslaved by Americans in America. Where’s their Holocaust Memorial?

The anti-apology crowd asks, Why now? All the slaves and slave owners are dead. Are we engaging in generational guilt and victimhood? And why single out slavery? Shouldn’t we also give back the land we stole from the Indians (native Americans) and Mexicans? How about a national apology to women and homosexuals who were historically mistreated by law and custom, as well?

Moulden's party switch has its critics

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-27/GOV

When William Moulden changed his party three months after being reappointed to office, little did he know it would stir controversy.

Mr. Moulden, now a Democrat, had spent the past eight years on the county's Board of Appeals plus a lifetime before that as a Republican. He sat on the board that granted Daryl Wagner permission to keep the palatial home he built without permits on Little Dobbins Island, and was one of three members reappointed in January.

Gansler, Mitchell building bridges

Partnership carries benefits for Baltimore mayoral candidate and the attorney general, who is setting his sights set higher

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215154_32320.shtml

Less than three weeks after being sworn in as attorney general, Douglas F. Gansler stood on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Laurens Street in downtown Baltimore alongside Baltimore City Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr. as Mitchell announced his bid for mayor.

The two lawyers struck up a friendship during Gansler’s statewide campaign last year when Mitchell was the only city-elected official to embrace the then-Montgomery County chief prosecutor.

Mayor Sheila Dixon looks back on her first 100 days

http://www.examiner.com/a-697975~Mayor_Sheila_Dixon_looks_back_on_her_first_100_days.html

Taking stock of her first 100 days in office, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon admits she is walking a fine line. Her ambition to transform the city is tempered by the realities of precious little time before the next election.

While she touts increased tree planting and extra trash recycling, reductions in police overtime and a decrease in homicides as evidence she is getting things done, there are some things she says will have to wait.

Dixon turning heads early in term

http://www.gazette.net/stories/042707/polinew215334_32336.shtml

Three months or so into her term as Baltimores unelected mayor, Sheila Dixon has weathered crisis after crisis at what is often called the toughest job in Maryland. A 53-year-old single mother of two, shell soon be running for election in her own right in a city known for its bare-knuckle politics.

Yet, says Dixon of her time so far: Nothing has been really hard. ... I live a dull life.

Dixon settles in for solid start

Critics say she's ducking tough issues, but mayor is praised for response to crisis, council concerns

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.hundred27apr27,0,4743086.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Dixon praised for steady start as mayor marks first 100 days

Two months ago, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon - then 36 days into her term - walked into a silent conference room on the second floor of City Hall, filled with a dozen cameras and a palpable feeling of uncertainty over how the new mayor would handle her first crisis.

National News

House approves Iraq spending bill, defies Bush veto threat

http://www.wmdt.com/wires/displaystory.asp?id=60947562

Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest was one of only two Republicans joining Democrats in a defiant vote setting a date for the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The House voted 218 to 208 for a 124 (b) billion-dollar Iraq spending bill that would order President Bush to start pulling troops out by October First.

Senators set up veto showdown

House is joined in tying war spending to pullout

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.warvote27apr27,0,4263619.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

The Senate voted yesterday to tie new war spending in Iraq to a timetable for troop withdrawal, setting up the first veto showdown between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House.

Within minutes of the 51-46 vote, the White House declared the measure dead on arrival.

Earlier yesterday, Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski attended a ceremony to send off the 58th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Maryland National Guard, based in Pikesville. The Maryland Democrats both voted in favor of the bill.

"We need a change in our mission in Iraq so our soldiers can achieve a mission that's in the best interests of this country," Cardin said. "We need to get our soldiers out of the middle of a civil war, to focus on the war against terror."

Congressmen, Senators Sponsor Bill To Block LNG Terminal

http://wbal.com/shows/douglas/audio/story.asp?articleid=56963

Maryland Second District Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger is the U.S. House co-sponsor sponsor of legislation that would give state and local officials the final say over approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, similar to the one proposed for the Dundalk area.

"We are asking the citizens of my district to take the burden of this facility with very little input," Ruppersberger said.

Third District Congressman John Sarbanes and Seventh District Congressman Elijah Cummings are co-sponsoring the bill.

Maryland's two U.S. Senators are sponsoring a Senate version of the bill.

Vice President Cheney Says The President Will Veto Democrats' Bill To Mandate Troop Withdrawal From Iraq. "There are a couple of problems with the bill. It places restrictions on the president's ability as the commander in chief to deploy the force, basically. It sets deadlines for our operations in Iraq. It, in effect, mandates a withdrawal, retreat; defeat is another way to look at it. Obviously, we won't accept that. The president's made it clear from the beginning he will veto it, and he will. So, when it lands on his desk next week, he'll veto it, send it back to the Congress. They can try to override, but they don't have the vot es. there'll have to be another bill passed. The troops are still in the field, still in combat, still need the funds. I think there is a majority in Congress in both houses to pass a clean bill that's acceptable to the president." (Tad Walch, "Congress Won't Prevail, Cheney Says," [Salt Lake City, UT] Deseret Morning News, 4/27/07)

White House Counselor To The President Dan Bartlett Says The President Hopes "Democrats And Republicans Can Come Together And Negotiate A Way Forward And Get The Funding To The Troops." BARTLETT: "The President's made clear for several weeks, and I think this is kind of the disappointing aspect of where we are in this debate is that despite the fact that Democrats knew that they didn't have the votes to actually override a Presidential veto, they decided to send it anyway. And this is despite the fact that the top commander for Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, came to the United States Congress and told them that he needed more time to allow the reinforcements to get there, that he was seeing some progress, but tha t it was premature to make these type of assessments. And I do think that most Americans would not want their politicians in Washington to replace the judgment of their military commanders on the ground. So yes, he will veto this bill. He hopes they get it to him as quickly as possible so then Democrats and Republicans can come together and negotiate a way forward and get the funding to the troops." (CBS' "The Early Show," 4/27/07)

Vice President Cheney Says The President Will Veto Democrats' Bill To Mandate Troop Withdrawal From Iraq. "There are a couple of problems with the bill. It places restrictions on the president's ability as the commander in chief to deploy the force, basically. It sets deadlines for our operations in Iraq. It, in effect, mandates a withdrawal, retreat; defeat is another way to look at it. Obviously, we won't accept that. The president's made it clear from the beginning he will veto it, and he will. So, when it lands on his desk next week, he'll veto it, send it back to the Congress. They can try to override, but they don't have the vot es. there'll have to be another bill passed. The troops are still in the field, still in combat, still need the funds. I think there is a majority in Congress in both houses to pass a clean bill that's acceptable to the president." (Tad Walch, "Congress Won't Prevail, Cheney Says," [Salt Lake City, UT] Deseret Morning News, 4/27/07)

White House Counselor To The President Dan Bartlett Says The President Hopes "Democrats And Republicans Can Come Together And Negotiate A Way Forward And Get The Funding To The Troops." BARTLETT: "The President's made clear for several weeks, and I think this is kind of the disappointing aspect of where we are in this debate is that despite the fact that Democrats knew that they didn't have the votes to actually override a Presidential veto, they decided to send it anyway. And this is despite the fact that the top commander for Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, came to the United States Congress and told them that he needed more time to allow the reinforcements to get there, that he was seeing some progress, but tha t it was premature to make these type of assessments. And I do think that most Americans would not want their politicians in Washington to replace the judgment of their military commanders on the ground. So yes, he will veto this bill. He hopes they get it to him as quickly as possible so then Democrats and Republicans can come together and negotiate a way forward and get the funding to the troops." (CBS' "The Early Show," 4/27/07)

20070421 Dems exit stage left

DEMS EXIT STAGE LEFT

April 27^th, 2007

At Last Night's Debate, Dems Pandered To Extreme Left And Defied Experts In Their Call For Withdrawal From Iraq

______________________________________________________

DEMS PANDER TO THE LEFT WITH IRAQ RHETORIC

In Their First 2008 Presidential Debate, Dems Supported Arbitrary Withdrawal From Iraq :

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Commended Democrat Leaders For Passing Bill That Set A Date For Arbitrary Withdrawal From Iraq. Sen. Clinton: "I'm very proud of the Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for putting together a piece of legislation which says ... we will limit the number of days [troops] can be deployed, and we will start to bring them home." (Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

• Sen. Clinton: "If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will." (Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Echoed Sen. Clinton's Praise For Withdrawal. Sen. Obama: "I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. And it says there's no military solution to this. We've got to ... begin a phased withdrawal." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

• Sen. Obama: "[I]t's time to end this war." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): "[T]he President Should Start Off By Not Vetoing The Language Which ... We Just Passed Today Saying, "Begin To Drawdown American Troops Right Now..." (Sen. Joseph Biden, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM): "We Must End This War. This Is What I Would Do If Were President Today. I Would Withdraw All Of Our Troops, Including Residual Troops, By The End Of This Calendar Year." (Gov. Bill Richardson, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)

Dems Refuse To Acknowledge The Consequences Of Withdrawal

Top General In Iraq Warned That Withdrawal Would Lead To Increased Violence And Ethnic Cleansing:

Gen. David Petraeus, The Top Military Commander In Iraq, Said A Precipitous Withdrawal Would Lead To Ethnic Cleansing And No Positive Outcomes. Gen. Petraeus: "I think that sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing ... There is the possibility, certainly, of an international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq. There is the possibility of problems in the global economy, should in fact this cause a disruption to the flow of oil -- and a number of ot her potential outcomes, none of which are positive." (Gen. Petraeus, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/23/07)

• Gen. Petraeus: "My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now." (Gen. David Petraeus, Press Conference, 4/26/07)

FLASHBACK: Sens. Clinton, Obama, And Biden Voted To Unanimously Confirm General Petraeus To Be The Top Military Commander In Iraq. (Petraeus Confirmation, Roll Call Vote #33: Approved 81-0: R 37-0; D 42-0; I 2-0, 1/26/07, Clinton, Obama, And Biden Voted Yea)

The National Intelligence Estimate Report Warned Against Precipitous Withdrawal:

The National Intelligence Estimate States That If Coalition Forces Were "Rapidly Withdrawn" There Would Be "Adverse Consequences For National Reconciliation." "If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation." (National Intelligence Estimate Report, "Prospects For Iraq's Stability," www.dni.gov, 1/07)

• "If Such A Rapid Withdrawal Were To Take Place, We Judge That The ISF Would Be Unlikely To Survive As A Non-Sectarian National Institution; Neighboring Countries--Invited By Iraqi Factions Or Unilaterally--Might Intervene Openly In The Conflict." (National Intelligence Estimate Report, "Prospects For Iraq's Stability," www.dni.gov, 1/07)

The Iraq Study Group Said That A Premature American Departure From Iraq Would Have "A Number Of Adverse Consequences":

Iraq Study Group: "We Also Rejected The Immediate Withdrawal Of Our Troops, Because We Believe That So Much Is At Stake." ("The Iraq Study Group Report," 12/6/06, p. 50)

• Iraq Study Group: "A Premature American Departure From Iraq Would Almost Certainly Produce Greater Sectarian Violence And Further Deterioration Of Conditions, Leading To A Number Of The Adverse Consequences Outlined Above." ("The Iraq Study Group Report," 12/6/06, p. 30)
  
  

• Iraq Study Group: "The Near-Term Results Would Be A Significant Power Vacuum, Greater Human Suffering, Regional Destabilization, And A Threat To The Global Economy. Al Qaeda Would Depict Our Withdrawal As A Historic Victory." ("The Iraq Study Group Report," 12/6/06, p. 30)

The Iraqi Government Said That Timetables For Withdrawal Would Undermine Political Progress In Iraq:

Iraqi Spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh: "We see some negative signs in the decision [to pass the Democrat timetable legislation] because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process ..." ("Iraqi Spokesman Criticizes Senate Vote," The Associated Press, 4/26/07)

PDF Format

A Product Of The RNC Research Department

20070427 Daily Photoblog “Big Baker Chapel”

Daily Photoblog “Big Baker Chapel”

April 27^th, 2007

“Big Baker Chapel” McDaniel College, Westminster, MD

20070427 US Soldiers Indicted In Spanish Court

US Soldiers Indicted In Spanish Court

April 27^th, 2007

The CBS News web site is carrying an AP story about a “Spanish Court (that has passed) Down Homicide Charges Against Three In Deaths Of Two Journalists In Baghdad”

U.S. Soldiers Indicted In Iraq Tank Deaths

MADRID, Spain, April 27, 2007

“Under Spanish law, a crime committed against a Spaniard abroad can be prosecuted here if it is not investigated in the country where it was allegedly committed.”

Although AP was quick to share with readers the “Spanish point of view,” it certainly was not very forthcoming with the American point of view, except for one brief “Following the incident, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said the troops responded after drawing hostile fire from the hotel. He said a U.S. review of the incident found the use of force was justified.

I’m not sure which I hold in greater contempt, the Spanish Court or AP…

The comments in the comment section run the gamut from howling moonbat to the thoughtful and responsible

One commenter got it right… it has been established that “the tanks were hunting for "scopes" and other lenses which would indicate snipers. Their mission was to clear the city of snipers and other troops wherever possible.”

For those who are not aware, it was reported at the time that enemy snipers were holed in the hotel, using the journalists who stayed behind – in the middle of war theatre - as shields…

Another commenter elaborated, “…The unfortunate Spanish journalists were in a war zone, a place with known risks. If they didn't understand the risks to themselves at the time the tanks began to cross the bridge… I'm sorry to say this, but Spain is a nation of sycophantic quivering idiots.”

I’m not sure I can indict the entire country for the acts of some of their politicians and members of judiciary… Folks in glass houses should not throw stones. The world is well aware of that vocal portion of our country’s political leadership that opposes the war… Folks like Cindy Sheehan and Senator Harry Reid, Representative Nancy Pelosi, et al, are heroes among folks who support al-Qaeda on the world stage.

As much as some folks may dismiss this as moonbat politics on the world stage, for the folks involved, it cannot be treated lightly, “For those that don't know, those soldiers cannot set foot anywhere within the (E)uropean union, they will be arrested…”

Anyway, the AP story reads, in part:

(AP) A judge indicted three U.S. soldiers Friday in the (April 8) 2003 death of a Spanish journalist who was killed when their tank opened fire at a hotel in Baghdad.

Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp were charged with homicide in the death of Jose Couso and "a crime against the international community." This is defined under Spanish law as an indiscriminate or excessive attack against civilians during war.

[…]

DeCamp, who is now an adjunct professor of mathematics at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va., did not immediately return a telephone message left at his home. The school said he retired from the Army in July 2005.

[…]

At the time of the incident, all were from the 3rd Infantry Division, based in Fort Stewart, Ga. Judge Santiago Pedraz asked U.S. authorities to notify them of the indictment.

Couso, who worked as a cameraman for the Spanish TV network Telecinco, died on April 8, 2003, after a U.S. Army tank crew fired a shell at the Palestine Hotel, where many journalists were staying. Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian cameraman for Reuters, was also killed.

Read the rest here – but not on a full stomach: U.S. Soldiers Indicted In Iraq Tank Deaths

####

20070426 Antidepressants don’t help bipolar depression

Antidepressants don’t help bipolar depression

April 27th, 2007

One of the many things that gives me faith in the future are the bloggers in the Maryland area who express passion for various social (and political – no matter which side of the aisle for which you reside) issues that face our greater community.

Certainly one colleague who comes to mind immediately is Bruce Godfrey over at Crablaw – one great example: “Getting the Truth Out About Autism.”

The reaction to former Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan’s announcement on June 22, 2006 was affirming…

Various family members and friends work with the physically and mentally handicapped and that higher calling is first among equals.

I take my hat off to them. The work can be difficult, but we should all take a moment from time to time to thank them as there, by the grace of God, could be any of us by merely a faint twist of fate.

I thought that many of the thoughtful and socially conscious bloggers and readers, who work with handicapped and mentally disadvantaged folks, would find the following interesting.

Antidepressants don't help bipolar depression

Thu Apr 26, 9:31 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The swings in mood from depression to mania that afflict people with bipolar disorder can be tempered with drugs such as lithium, but adding an antidepressant drug to ease the depression component is not helpful, new research suggests.

Depressive episodes are the main cause of disability for people with bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic depression, according to the report in The

New England Journal of Medicine. However, few studies have assessed the benefits of standard antidepressant drugs in treating bipolar depression. This may in part stem from the widely held but unproven belief that treatment with these drugs may trigger mania.

Read the rest here: Antidepressants don't help bipolar depression

And if you would like to consider supporting a great cause, go to: http://www.granitehouse.org/ - - “Granite House, Inc. is a not-for-profit behavioral health system dedicated to the improvement of mental health in the community by meeting the needs of individuals, families and organizations.”

To join me at the “Rock and Roll Ball,” call 410-751-5970 and ask for Laura Rhodes and tell her I sent ya.

####

20070427 Public Opposes Immediate Troop Withdrawal

Public Opposes Immediate Troop Withdrawal

White House: By The Numbers

4/27/2007

From the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives

---

Public Opposes Immediate Troop Withdrawal

Low Support for Immediate Pullout

According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm Americas reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the country remains unstable (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

Majority Supports Funding War, Troops

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats plan for withdrawal, Congress should still allow funding for the war even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).

Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

U.S. Troops Could be Hurt

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts the troops, while only 27% believe it helps the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).

Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).

20070426 Last Day of School in CCPS in June 2007

Last Day Of School for Carroll County Public Schools in the 2006-2007 School Year

April 26th, 2007

Carroll County Public Schools used only five emergency closing days this year. As noted on the back of the school calendar, six days were built into the calendar. Therefore, the school year will end as follows:

June 12, 2007
Last Day for Kindergarten Students

June 13, 2007
Two Hour Early Dismissal for StudentsProfessional Time for Teachers

June 14, 2007
Last Day for StudentsTwo Hour Early Dismissal for Students Professional Time for Teachers

June 15, 2007
Professional Day for Teachers - Last Duty Day

####

20070427 Quote of the day

Quote of the day

April 27, 2007

“Every man is his own ancestor, and every man is his own heir. He devises his own future and he inherits his own past.” Frederick Henry Hedge (1805-1890) Cleric and educator

Thanks TC

20070426 ScrappleFace weighs in on all the current Congressional probes

ScrappleFace weighs in on all the current Congressional probes

April 26^th, 2007

As well as Scott Ott writes, the comment section on his post is nearly better than his couple of paragraphs of satire…

It has gotten to the point that no one can keep up with all the probes and investigations…

I share with the comment thread that it would be interesting to witness Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testify for the umpteenth time. Although it appears she is not pre-disposed to do so.

One commenter echoed some of my thoughts – how long will it be before even Barney is investigated.

Bush Suggests More Targets for Congressional Probes

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2580

by Scott Ott

(2007-04-26) — White House sources say President George Bush has given Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi a list of administration officials who would make good targets for Congressional probes as part of Mr. Bush’s strategy to keep Democrats preoccupied with investigations and thus distracted from implementing their legislative agenda.

Read the rest here: http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2580

Related Stories

House Panels Approve Rice Subpoena, Immunity For Gonzales Aide

Senior Justice Department Official Involved in Firings Flap Resigns

House Panel Vote Postponed on Immunity For Gonzales Aide

Justice Department Sends More Documents to Congress Over Attorney Firings

Attorney General Gonzales to Return to Capitol Hill For Meeting With Democratic Senator

####

20070426 Gov to attend trooper graduation

Gov to attend trooper graduation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2007

Governor To Join Secretary Of State Police For Trooper Graduation Ceremony
GOVERNOR TO JOIN SECRETARY OF STATE POLICE
FOR TROOPER GRADUATION CEREMONY

(Pikesville, MD) –

Governor Martin O’Malley will join Department of State Police Secretary Colonel Thomas E. Hutchins tomorrow to preside over the graduation of the 129th Trooper Candidate Class in Pikesville, Md. Following his remarks, Governor O’Malley will personally congratulate the 38 new troopers who have just completed 26 weeks of rigorous training. The graduates will be joined by their families and Maryland State Police commanders at the ceremony.

WHAT: GRADUATION OF THE 129TH TROOPER CANDIDATE CLASS

WHEN: FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 200710:00 A.M.

WHERE: MARYLAND STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS GYMNASIUM 1201 REISTERSTOWN ROAD PIKESVILLE, MD.

Take I-695 to Exit 20 east – Reisterstown Road
Reisterstown Road to left on Sudbrook Lane
Make first left into MSP HQ
Gymnasium is on the right

###

20070426 Quote of the day

Quote of the day

April 26th, 2007

Aged?

“There is no old age. There is, as there always was, just you.” Carol Matthau (1925-2003) Actor

Thanks TC

20070426 Lieberman statement on Iraq floor statement

Lieberman statement on Iraq floor statement

April 26^th, 2007

Statement by Senator Lieberman on Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill - Apr 26, 2007

Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman's floor statement.

Hat Tip: “The Tank,” National Review Online’s military blog: Lead Us Not Into Temptation... [Kathryn Jean Lopez] and Michelle Malkin: Senate passes surrender bill.

“Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this—why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to “transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.”

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,” that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct “targeted counter-terror operations” under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.

But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq’s neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won’t, in his words, be “interjecting themselves between warring factions” or “trying to sort friend from foe.”

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well.

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn’t have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn’t so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is “the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007.”

Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts “pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises.”

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would “almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.”

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will “reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.”

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. “In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar,” he said, “if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.”

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as “the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with… in Anbar [since] 2003.”

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is “a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over.”

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose “tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.”

I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

But I don’t see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a “diplomatic, economic, and political offensive… starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.”

I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

I yield the floor.”

20070425 On Boris Yeltsin

On Boris Yeltsin

April 25^th, 2007

The photo above is credited to: Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP file

“Then Russian President Boris Yeltsin dances at a rock concert in Rostov, Russia, in June 1996. View related photos ("Never one for protocol, Yeltsin was entertaining.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5FIoocja4k

My Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Tentacle column is on Boris Yeltsin, Dead at 76

Best known for standing on a tank in the middle of Moscow and almost single-handedly defying a coup in 1991, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin is the same person who just two years earlier had fished himself out of a river clad only in his underwear.

It was in 1989 that the man history may reflect upon as one of the most significant players in dismantling the U.S.S.R somehow ended up in a police station outside Moscow dripping wet.

According to a Reuters' account, Mr. Yeltsin claimed that he "had been attacked, his head covered with a sack and dumped off a bridge into a river. Top communists said he had been drunk while on his way to a tryst with a lover."

On Monday, in Moscow's Central Clinical Hospital, he died of heart failure. A walking-talking contradiction, history has yet to fathom his legacy.

Read the rest of the column here: Boris Yeltsin, Dead at 76.

This may be one of my many favorite Yeltsin moments – which I remember seeing, really time…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQULzrgC3dg

####

20070425 Quote of the day

Quote of the day

April 25, 2007: Opportunity

“Too often the opportunity knocks, but by the time you disengage the chain, push back the bolt, unhook the two locks and shut off the burglar alarms, its too late.” Rita Coolidge Singer

Thanks TC

####