President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 26, 2007 03:20 PM UTC
66 Comments
Today the House could vote on the Salazar/Udall amendment, which will grant a one-year time out on leasing the Roan Plateau, in keeping with the request of area governments, the Governor, tens of thousands of citizens, etc.
An op-ed runs in today’s Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid%3Dtop_opinions&sub=AR
And the Sentinel has a story at http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/06/26/6_26_1a_Roan_amendment.html
Has this really united Coloradans? Which group or elected officials are supporting the drilling effort?
What a great day in Colorado history. Two democrat members of Congress are pushing an amendment to screw the State of Colorado out of $1 billion+ in bonus payments and royalties. I suppose when you live in an ivory tower (and you have the ability to engage in deficit spending) you don’t need to worry about that kind of money. Our legislature DOES. Shame on them.
Viva la short term profit and long term spoilage of our natural beauty! We can turn Colorado into Nevada and so we should!
I agree with Old Dusty, to a point. We can not have it both ways – energy independence and no increase in drilling at home. The revenue from the Roan Plateau would provide benefits this state hasn’t seen in many years. It would also increase the CO2 levels and increase impacts on cities and counties.
Energy development is not evil, it is essential. However, it is also essential that ALL the people around the table are willing to work towards specific goals and manage the impacts of the development.
I would rather continue with this than go to my meeting, but, duty calls.
that this is going to significantly impact our energy dependence than I’ll reconsider. From all I’ve read the oil and gas extracted will be minimal.
OTOH we know what the cost to Roan Plateau will be. The benefits realized aren’t worth it.
We can NOT drill our way to energy independence. That’s a fact, Jack. It is physically impossible — we do not have sufficient supplies within (current!) US territory to meet our considerable, and rising, demands.
ANYTIME someone proposes this false paradox, know that they are not informed and/or don’t really care about what is actually at stake. (More than likely, someone who proposes this paradox is using it as a red herring to avoid revealing that his/her interest is actually in short term profits.)
So, where is the balance?
The balance is in NOT drilling now. We are currently drilling all over the place. There are thousands of acres of leased lands that have yet to be drilled. The gas under the Roan will still be there in 20 years. It will be even more valuable then.
Of course, we could always try to reduce our energy demand. But that would be silly, and un-American, wouldn’t it?
energy independence. But I do believe that you can’t have energy independence without continued drilling. I’m all for renewable energy. I’d go nuclear if we could. But we need energy (oil/gas) to develop the new industries for the future. We need funding for research and development for converting cellulosic ethanol to energy. We don’t have that now.
Socially we are getting to a point of reducing our energy demand, but claims that we could do this overnight, or even in a year, are overblown, IMO. There’s nothing un-American about wanting what you speak of, but the realities on the ground show that we still have five-ten years until we get there (if we’re lucky) and what do we use for energy until then?
…Seems it was only a year ago that I was reading that the drilling companies were so desparate for rigs they were importing Chinese ones and their crews.
We still have a alot of uranium. Funny thing is that we would not need ANY more uranium (or WIPP) if IFR would be restarted. It does appear that W. may finally do this. Clinton shut it down due to Jonh Kerry. Sadly, they are looking at turning it over to france and japan rather than allowing our experts to do the work. Still, if it is re-started, hopefully the next president will NOT shut this down. Had Clinton not done this, we would be doing mass building of these plants RIGHT NOW, and would actually see cheap oil prices. In addition, the arguments over WIPP would be gone. All items being buried (in a hundred years) would be low energy levels with all half-lives of less than 200 years and most being less than 10 (as opposed to more than 10,000 years for the bulk of what is to be shipped to nevada).
We’ve got massive drilling going on at the base of the Plateau right now, and in many other spots throughout the state. The revenue stream isn’t so spectacular – nor the resources being mined so inexhaustible – that they justify the destruction of a prime piece of hunting, fishing, and hiking territory.
What do we give up in exchange for our supposed $1billion in one-time revenues? Tourist dollars for the life of the wells, plus as many years as it takes to recover the land. Water quality. I’d venture to say cleanup costs, since it seems almost SOP to abandon wells under false-front companies who go bankrupt after having their cash stream diverted to a protected parent company…
Alternate proposals have been put on the table including slant drilling. Public input has been immensely against development of the Roan. That the public and these proposals have been ignored in favor of road construction through a pristine area shows that ALL the people around the table aren’t willing to work together. Like the unnecessary expansion of PiГ±on Canyon to cover the entirety of the SouthEast portion of the state, this is just another cynical land grab by Bush for the purposes of screwing the environmentalists.
but we are a mineral rich state. We don’t need to exploit it but we shouldn’t shun it (and we aren’t). I like the Roan Plateau the way it is but I think about everything Colorado needs just to get us up to par in education, transportation, healthcare… and I don’t see another funding stream coming anytime soon (if anything we’re going to get more restrictive when Ref C times out).
Coloradans could reap a large benefit from our mineral wealth, especially if the interim committee looking at severance tax/FML dollars make some worthwhile recommendations.
A one-shot billion dollars or the Roan Plateau?
Could you buy another one for a billion?
I’m surprised at the shallowness of whoever decided to frame the argument in this way.
Your argument is the one that’s hollow, Ralphie. You assume that responsible development on the Roan Plateau completely destroys the area for future generations. That’s just plain wrong. Have you read the BLM’s Record of Decision on this? Do you understand the staggered approach they’ve proposed? If not, then shut the hell up about this issue. Just sit back and enjoy the $22 billion impact this industry is having on our state’s economy and keep throwing stones at them. As for the numbskull that tried to use the Colorado Environmental Coalition talking point that this isn’t a significant natural gas resource — so we shouldn’t develop it — I would suggest doing some research. 5-10 trillion cubic feet of natual gas is a HUGE resource. Beyond that, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Bill Clinton FULLY EXPECTED that the minerals WOULD be leased in this area. It’s not a bumper sticker. It’s common sense.
Calm down dustbuster,
Do you know anything about ecosystem restoration? Do you know anything about patterns of weed invasions? Do you know anything about how long it takes for soil to develop?
The BLM Record of Decision is based on the fiction that developed areas will be restored before industry can move on to a new area. If this was actually going to be enforced, then I would be very supportive of the plan. However, industry has not shown that it is interested or capable of actually doing this work.
Restoration of a drill pad to something that even remotely resembles the pre-existing native vegetation will likely take 20-50 years.
Do you think it is even remotely likely that even 10 years will pass between the exhaustion of the gas in the first 1% drilled and industry beginning to clear the next 1%?
Do you know how much it costs to successfully restore one acre in the arid west?
So much for your brand of Common Sense, huh!
Probably not as much as you, though.
Strict enforcement on the industry is essential if we move forward and this is something we currently do not have in Colorado (although adding members to the COGCC helped, don’t you think?).
My point is the oil/gas industry, according to a CO school of mines study contributes $22.9 billion to the economy, creates 70,000 jobs and adds $640.5 million in taxes. That is a damn significant number for a state that without this industry (hell, even with the industry) struggles every year to fund what needs to be funded.
one post at a time:)
…and what stuck in my craw is that although no oil flack said it, there was this underlying sense of “Look how important we are to the economy so that we should be able to do anything we want to.”
however, it is hard to argue that Colorado hasn’t benefited from the O/G industry. They are not the panacea for our state (gawd forbid) but being a mineral state, we can use the industry to help us.
Right on. The industry always says they are over-regulated and they are right in that plenty of regulations exist. The funny thing is, the reg.s aren’t enforced. COGCC has what, 9 inspectors for something like 35,000 wells?
And all it restricts is how much of the area can be DRILLED at one time. At some point, phased or not, it will all become a shithouse, just like I-70 between Rifle and DeBeque.
You just tossed out a term: “Responsible Development.” Define it. What does that look like to you? Without a definition, it’s just a talking point.
Those wells will be in production for decades. That means the roads will be there for decades. And how do you get the gas out without pipelines? Have your friends in the industry talked about that? Drilling isn’t the only problem, my friend.
I’d rather have the Roan plateau than the money. There’s no amount of money that can replace it.
Instead, they should have the laws change to say that BEST available tech will be used (as opposed to lowest costs approach) as well as requiring that the company be the WHOLE company (not a subsidiary) and finally requiring that the CEO put it on the line. Once you hold companies and CEO responsible (i.e. jail time and HUGE fines if they screw up), then reasonable drilling will be done. In particular, they would use slant drilling from a single site. In addition, not chemical dilution (I do know not what the compounds are, but most likely some form of a benzine or phenol). If the drilling can not be accomplished legally, cleanly, AND safely, then companies will not do it due to being held liable.
That is the real problem in America. The business world is not held accountable. In every case, a subsidiary is created and all responsibility is removed. Even the concept of a INC removes that. Worse, you look at the fact that W. removed all the cleanliness requirements for drilling and you understand that politicians are just as bad ( and the dems gave us the wonderful DMCA, fought the original EPA creation, amongst other nightmares ).
In my opinion, our nation — under both Republican (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and Democratic (Carter, Clinton) leadership — has failed over the last 30+ years to develop policies that wean us off our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.
Now, the choice we have is (1) drill in environmentally sensitive domestic locations to feed our oil monkey, (2) endure higher gas/fuel prices and the economic impact they cause or (3) feed our oil monkey by sending bigger $$ to nations that mean us harm (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) and be vulnerable to oil shocks every time these areas erupt in conflict.
If our elected leaders had made energy a national priority and made even a modest effort to develop energy policies and programs beginning in the 1970s (the first oil crises) to dramatically increase fuel mileage and promote development of alternative fuels (e.g., hydrogen, electric, ethanol) and technologies (e.g., mass transit), I believe that we would not be in Iraq, would not face the consequences engendered by the war in Iraq (i.e., our “new” role of being stuck in the Sunni-Shitte Biblical tar baby). We would also not face today’s devisive drilling debate and the Hobson’s choice it presents.
Arguably, the 9/11 attacks and our war on terror would not have occured if we were not addicted to Persian Gulf oil and needed a presence in the Middle East. We did not send troops to Rwanda and probably would not have sent troops to Kuwait but for oil.
Instead, we squandered 30+ years by chasing short-term, partisan political issues that, with the perspective of history, may not have mattered at all.
Carter was the one who has been screaming to get us off the imported oil back when it hit 2%. If reagan had followed through on them, we would not be in the same boat today. In particular, it was Carter that pushed us towards alternative.
Likewise, the same is true of Poppa Bush. His big thing was the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). Sadly, Clinton killed it due to Kerry’s push. If either president’s work had been followed through on, then we would most likely not have these issues. Probably the biggest folley’s of all, have been reagan and w’s pushing of oil companies (oddly enough, poppa Bush did not push them).
The real problem with large projects like these, is that it requires long term commitments to them. If any president is going to make a dent in our issues, they need to make it #1 priority as soon as they step into office and pray that they make a second term (as well as have a follower behind them). This is what happened to NASA. Great idea. Started off awesome. Destroyed by Nixon.
In my opinion, the mark of an effective leader — in either the public or the private sector — is that s/he produces results that carry on past his/her tenure. Carter and Bush 1.0 did not do that in spite of good intentions.
Merely proposing something that is dropped like a hot rock by the next administration is politics not leadership, in my opinion.
Carter inherited a nightmare from Nixon/Ford. It was under his eye, that the economy was addressed and turned around (but shown in reagans). In particular, he was responsible for the de-regs of the airlines as well as the oil industry. In addition, it was he who hired volker who then proceeded to jack up the interest rate so that inflation could be tamed.
All in all, he was a VERY effective president. As it was, reagan barely won (which BTW, I did not vote for either of them) in the popular vote. Reagan put us heavily into debt while enjoying the spoils from the war that carter fought. Sadly, many of carter’s program were disassembled by reagan which would have prevented this current nightmare.
Poppa bush did the exact same thing. reagan had been grinding America into the ground with what was then some of the worse policies of the last century. His deficits were killers. The only higher deficits was FDR during WWI (which is very udnerstandable). Poppa Bush jacked up taxes and started cuts. Had he done it at the start of hsi candidacy he would have won the second go. As it was, clinton, like reagan, got to enjoy poppa’s bush efforts. And again, if Clinton had not disassembled poppa bush’s IFR program, we would be independent of foreign oil today. Sadly, the president’s who have done what was needed for America are not the ones that we like to elect. Hopefully, the next generation will be smarter than we are.
And let’s not forget the economic mess Nixon inherited from Johnson’s “guns AND butter” policies.
1. He promised that the US would never import more oil than it was then, late 70’s. Of course, he couldn’t control Reagan.
2. He said a couple of years ago that if the USA had kept the CAFE standards from his administration, we would not need to import ONE barrel of oil from the Middle East. Think about that. Think Iraq, terrorism, etc.
3. He installed solar panels on the white house, Reagan took them down almost immediately to placate the oil money that put him there.
Americans want to feel good. They don’t like messages such as the ones Carter gave, which of course, were true. They would much rather elect a doddering, placating, “Morning in America” type that only destroys America in the long term.
How about a break from opining about the Manzanares’ suicide?
Did anyone attend the listening session in Colorado Springs, yesterday? The focus of these, as I understand, is to discuss whether to change how/when the Colorado Constituition may be amended.
For your info, here’s the provision in the Colorado Constitution that describes how a constitutional convention can be called …
The general assembly may at any time by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, recommend to the electors of the state, to vote at the next general election for or against a convention to revise, alter and amend this constitution; and if a majority of those voting on the question shall declare in favor of such convention, the general assembly shall, at its next session, provide for the calling thereof. The number of members of the convention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the same manner, at the same places, and in the same districts. The general assembly shall, in the act calling the convention, designate the day, hour and place of its meeting; fix the pay of its members and officers, and provide for the payment of the same, together with the necessary expenses of the convention. Before proceeding, the members shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the convention. The qualifications of members shall be the same as of members of the senate; and vacancies occurring shall be filled in the manner provided for filling vacancies in the general assembly. Said convention shall meet within three months after such election and prepare such revisions, alterations or amendments to the constitution as may be deemed necessary; which shall be submitted to the electors for their ratification or rejection at an election appointed by the convention for that purpose, not less than two nor more than six months after adjournment thereof; and unless so submitted and approved by a majority of the electors voting at the election, no such revision, alteration or amendment shall take effect.
I didn’t make it to the meeting in the Springs, but I’ll be listening in this afternoon–the meeting’s going to be broadcast using the regular Leg Audio stream. You can get more info on listening in on the Speaker’s blog–http://www.andrewrom…. (Full disclosure, I manage his blog.)
Some Background:
Eighteen states allow their constitution to be amended by initiative.
It’s easier to qualify a constitutional initiative to the ballot in Colorado than in any other state.
The Colorado Constitution has been amended 47 times since 1980.
The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789.
Some questions:
How do we preserve direct access to the ballot?
How do we avoid ambiguity in the constitution?
How do we resolve conflicts in the constitution?
It’ll be interesting to hear what they have to say.
–Louella
Essentially, what you had was a hundred policy wonks, mostly from the Democratic Party, who seemed adamant about making it a lot more difficult to change the constitution. Jenny Bowser from the National Council of State Legislatures gave a power point presentation; the upshot was that our system was almost identical to California’s. Since CA’s system appears to work reasonably well, it is a solution in search of a problem.
Fred Barnes was in attendance, sporting an insipidly gaudy sunshine tie. Reps included Cerbo, Levy, Borodin, Al White, McNulty, Judd, Soper, and Romanoff, of course. We broke out into small groups, where we bent the reps’ ears.
I got a chance to talk with Speaker Romanoff before the show, and he seemed quite receptive to the proposed Judicial Accountability Act. (As he is not a lawyer, he wasn’t aware that judges could act knowingly and with malice with total immunity in tort.) During the conversation, he told me about the notion of empowering the Legislature to resolve conflicts between conflicting provisions via super-majority vote. This is a surgical approach to what appears to be a limited problem, and has some chance of actually passing. I can get behind this idea, as it solves the problem without creating larger ones.
From a policy perspective, the biggest problem with making it harder to amend the Constitution is in providing a clear advantage to larger, more well-financed groups. The most difficult political hurdle is that the Legislature is trying to take power away from the people, and that is going to be a tough sell in fiercely libertarian Colorado.
I had to scamper before discussion on a ConCon could take place, so I’ll have to rely on other reports.
How do you avoid ambiguity in the Constitution? Write better initiatives, and kick the Mullarkey Court out of office.
While I grant that the professional political hacks hate our current system, taking power from the people is rarely a good idea … and it should not be done absent a pressing need.
when a bunch of hacks and loons hamstring our government every other year …
Hey, if you don’t want to discuss this rationally then just say so.
There is really no arguing with such a rational person like yourself. Have you read the state constitution lately?
Even have the I2’s copy and the OLL Lexis version bookmarked. Few have actually read it in its entirety, but as you know, I have had both the occasion and the need. Not that Article II (and in particular, Section 6) has any discernible value….
It is nowhere near as elaborate as California’s, and it seems to me that California gets along just fine without abridgement or massive reorganization.
My disagreement with the Stalinist Left on this board (which is VERY well-represented) comes down to one basic postulate: Government should be the servant of the people, as opposed to the other way around. Public officials should be accountable to individual citizens for injuries they willfully inflict on those they serve, and I am more inclined to trust the people of Colorado than Czar Andrew Romanoff.
Call me names and defame me if you must (and I suppose that in this sandbox, it is deemed inappropriate for me to respond in kind), but I will continue to point out your hypocrisy for all to see.
Is that a synonym for registered voters, or are they elected officials?
Development of an overhauled constitution in a constitutional convention and approval of such a complex document by the voters seems like an unrealistic objective in today’s partisan political world. For example, consider this blog as a small-world illustration of how single issue focused most people tend to be, how unaccepting people are of ideas that not their own and the general lack of concrete solutions and facts that are a part of political discussions. It would take a pretty broad-minded collection of individuals to write a constitution. I ain’t seeing ’em in Colorado.
I suspect that the “listening” tour (Translation: “You voters need to ‘listen’ to what I, your elected official, say.”) will devolve into yet another Constitutional amendment rather and the overhaul our phone-book sized constitution needs.
I’m only aware of one state constitutional convention — Missouri — which happened around or shortly after the turmoil of the Civil War.
Another in a continuting series of posts by Paul Revere, I mean Verizzo, about the decline of the USA as a first world nation. I realize that the tribalists among us wish to circle the wagons and deny reality. But those of us living in reality realize that you can’t know what to do if you don’t have the facts.
Our internet speeds suck. Even the much maligned French have average speeds ten times ours. (And universal health care, natch!) Colorado ranks 41st. (There, I got CO politics into this thread.)
http://www.usatoday….
I’ve also read that we grossly overpay for broadband compared to many nations. Another miracle of unregulated market forces. In fact, that’s probably a huge reason for our slow average speeds, people opt to not pay for broadband.
I postulate that we are a very rich third world country; stolen elections, importer of finished goods, exporter of ag products and jobs, 50-60% of the discretionary budget going to the military, advocate of torture and police state policies, way down the list on infant mortality and health care generally, and on and on.
Not the America I grew up in.
Don’t forget our corrupt judiciary. We’re actually ranked below such beacons of democracy as Kenya, Kosovo, and Korea when it comes to this essential bulwark against the loss of civil liberties, and not far ahead of Russia! Even Colombian and Fijian judges (despite two coups in the past ten years) have better reps — and for very good reasons.
Source: Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems, p. 12, available at http://www.transpare…
Perhaps, I’ll concede your point that services are more expensive here but hardware deals are galore: In the streets and in parking lots, vendors with no overhead costs, peddle their wares. For example, one can find steals, such as perfectly decent, pre-owned laptops for around three hundred dollars.
This is where the problem lies. You’d have to be a fool to buy a used laptop sight unseen, without taking even a cursory look at whether it was functional. Viruses can render drives unusable, which means that you might just be the proud owner of an expensive new paperweight. Worse yet, you could have malicious software on the drive, which means that everything you input (including bank passwords) is transmitted to others with malevolent intent.
Manzanares’ cover story was so ridiculous as to invite scorn.
. . .
The reference was clear.
. . . sufficient information to confirm or deny the allegation and, therefore, deny the same.
still talking about Manzanares here.
The reason why the high speeds suck is because we have granted monopolies. There was an attempt to correct this by allowing builders to register with the state and then go at it. Comcast, USWest, and The cities and counties gov fought against that. IF we really want to change things then we have 3 choices.
I would guess that many of them set up the legislation, then ask for bids on the construction and management. But Verizon-France, to make up an entity, doesn’t make money from direct billing, only the administration.
In this way, rural areas can get broadband at a fair price. Look at our own Glenwood Springs, ignored by Comcast and Qwest for years as unprofitable. Where was the hew and cry for cherrypicking there? So when GS decides that they will build their own system via wifi, what happens? They are taken to court, with those very same companies claim that only they have the right to build out a system…which they hadn’t done.
Makes one’s head spin.
Most of the companies are like old ATT. That is they are heavily regulated state monopolies. That is a big part of the reason why they can put in high speed lines quickly. In the end, they will switch (remember what the old ATT was like from the inside? lots of overhead). But our problem is that we have minimal regulations, but have given a total monopoly. That MUST be stopped. WOW (way out west or something like that) had the right idea. They could have succeeded, but they did not have enough funding. What is needed is for new developments to push this. In particular, the development companies would do well to set up their own monopoly company and control just from the green box to the home. Once the home is established with fiber and cat5(esp with power), then you have a VERY cheap telecom infrastructure. Qwest and Comcast will fight that at first, but all of the others would jump all over this.
That thought is stepping on the tails of Qwest and CC!
The natural order of business is towards monopoly. Period.
Seriously, why post messages to yourself. That is SO lame.
speaking in the 3rd person – although we may start seeing tht as the elections draw near.
Spooooooky.
“’This is the type of case that a mentally challenged pro se plaintiff would file,’ Mr. Power [Chief Justice Robert R. Thomas’ attorney] said.” http://www.nytimes.c…
Err, never mind that the lawyers filing it are from Baker & Hostetler and Mandell Menkes. Think the judge’s attorney should be sued for libel?
“Judge O’Brien walked a fine line in considering this point. He noted that the chief justice, his boss, had given ‘heartfelt and sincere testimony.'”
Would you expect one of our black-robed whores to say anything different?
Our judges are corrupt whores, who rule for each other as a matter of course. Does anyone seriously think that they can get a fair hearing in our nation’s courts any more?
Statistics show that judges consistently dance with the girl who brung ’em; this was the unfortunate legacy of the Bork hearings.
Pedogrande is a disgusting puke?
–the surge, the geopolitics, diplomatic options, US domestic timelines, energy independence, Arab-Israeli conflict, it’s all there. Much food for thought and basis for discussion.
FWIW, Bush has now lost Hagel & Lugar, and John Warner appears not running for re-election–three of the senior Repub foreign policy leaders.
Here’s the link:
http://lugar.senate….
i was going to post it but you beat me to it.
one of the most, cogent, well thought out position statements on Iraq around.
Short on detail, but long on principle
this analysis was clear before the surge ever started–much of it before the war ever started. But maybe we can finally start working past this train wreck. We are going to be reaping consequences of this fiasco for a long time.
the cost of the overthrow of the pro-Western Mossadegh regime in the 1950s. We installed the Ba’athists, and the rest is a history that will haunt us until long after I am gone.
Like it or not, the solution has to be a largely diplomatic one.
If we staked out a much harder line toward Israel, we could reduce that source of irritation and be more credible as an honest power broker in the region. Lugar won’t go there on grounds that it isn’t domestically palatable (even suggesting it will make some people angry here), but that is what frankly needs to happen. Personally, I think the Israelis are creative enough to get along just fine without us, and if left to their own devices, they will find a solution. Moreover, it would also reduce the motivation for terrorism, which helps us all.
…let go? Fat chance, just like a junkie won’t.
Looks like Lugar and Voinovich – two of the most respected Republicans on foreign policy issues – might have co-ordinated their move.
Does this advance the ball down the field for real Iraq policy reform? They’re pretty much advocating the Murtha / ISG strategy. Will other Republicans feel a little less reluctant to follow with these two standing in front of them?
Evidently McConnell was given advanced notice so maybe Voinovich too.
As far as the bigger question, there’s no way to say from the outside. Sounds like the speech was Lugar on his own. He’s a serious guy and the Repubs know their butts are on the line, but they have to deal with the Decider too. I think it’s going to take continuous, concerted pressure from across the spectrum–both the Out-of-Iraq crowd and the ISG “realists”. Keep those letters coming.