"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism"

Don't be so sure about the senate tiger. Although it's not definitive, there is a good chance of it happening. Just one indication...


Dems Widen Leads Over GOP Incumbents In Three Key Senate Races

A spate of new polls just out from Rasmussen shows that Dems have widened their leads in three key Senate races:

-- In Ohio, Dem Sherrod Brown now leads GOP Senator Mike DeWine by six points, 47%-41%. Last month, a Rasmussen poll showed that Brown's lead was statistically insignificant.

-- In Rhode Island, Dem Sheldon Whitehouse is head of GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee by eight points, 51%-43%. A little over two weeks ago, Rasmussen had Whitehouse ahead by only two points.

-- And in Montana, after a series of bad gaffes by GOP Senator Conrad Burns, Dem Jon Tester is ahead of the incumbent by nine points, 52%-43%. They were tied at 47% in August, according to Rasmussen.

Note that all three trailing Republicans are incumbents.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/

 

I'm going to remain optimistic!

More from Rasmussen.

Rasmussen: Post-election Senate 'balance' of power

Democrats have to win all seven states leaning their way plus all three Toss-Ups to regain control of the Senate. While that’s a tall order, recent history shows that it is quite possible for one party or the other to sweep all the close races. The Democrats did so in Election 2000 and the Republicans returned the favor in 2002. If the Democrats win all those seats but one, there would be a 50-50 tie. In that circumstance, Vice-President Dick Cheney would cast the deciding vote in his Constitutional role as the presiding officer of the Senate.

---------------

The struggling campaigns of Republican Senators Conrad Burns (MT), Lincoln Chafee (RI) and Mike DeWine (OH) have led Rasmussen Reports to modify their election ratings to yield almost an even split in the post-election Senate.

"The battle for control of the U.S. Senate is getting closer—much closer," Rasmussen declared. Recently they had summarized the Senate with Republicans leading 50-45 but now give it as 49-48, the GOP only a seat ahead with three races still considered "toss-ups."


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/BalanceofPower.htm

 

Once again the Military speaks out against the administration...


US Army top brass critical of Iraq war


Washington: US President George W Bush’s plan for interrogating al-Qaeda detainees has led to a new round of criticism. But unlike other times, this time it's coming from inside the military.

There are legal officers who say the President's plan puts US troops at risk by opening the door to redefining how personnel are treated under the Geneva conditions.

Three retired chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff also object to the interrogation plan. This is what they had to say.

General Colin Powell said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

"It could give opponents a legal argument for the mistreatment of Americans being held prisoner in time of war," General John Vessey said.

General John Shalikashvili said the administration proposal “poses a grave threat to American service members.

But that's isn’t enough. There are more questions about whether there were ever enough troops in Iraq.

Brigadier General John Kelly, who was on the front line in from 2003 to 2004, says he often had to move around.

"We are thankful that things didn't get too ugly too quickly because we literally didn't have the Marines or sailors to spare," Kelly said.

There is also General Binford Peay, retired head of Central Command, who said he believes there were "far too few" troops to Iraq. Peay is the third recent Central Command chief to criticise the war plan.

This past spring there have been several retired Generals who are essentially revolting and calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

However, the second revolt, analysts say reflect growing and deeper unhappiness with how the war is going.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/us-army-top-brass-criticise-bush/21927-2.html

 

Deal possibly reached, developing...

 

I am saddened for the America I was born into.

 

rim I think they're still talking...

Update: GOP, WH Fashion "Framework of Agreement" over Torture


The White House and GOP members of Congress say they've reached some level of compromise to break the deadlock over detainee treatment legislation. The deal, however, does not appear to solve a key disagreement over the use of classified information in terror prosecutions.

White House adviser Steven Hadley called the deal struck between the White House and three conservative GOP senators a "framework of agreement," while Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) called it a “conceptual agreement.” Nothing has been signed, however, and no specifics have been confirmed.

With the caveat that "details of the agreement were sketchy," AP reported the following:

It seems the agreement resolves just one of two points of conflict, however. There's no indication the administration has dropped its insistence it can prohibit terror suspects from seeing classified evidence used against them. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), one of three senators negotiating with the administration, has called that issue "the killer."

McClatchy quoted the senator Sept. 9: "I don't feel good about telling someone - no matter who they are - `We're going to execute you next week, but I'm sorry, we can't tell you why.'"

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001585.php

 

from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/terror.bill/index.html


Is this the equivalent of a signing statement?

 

Listening to the senators and the president, reading and watching the news, everyone is saying that the president's torture policy can go forward under the law, the trials will go forward without prisoners being able to see evidence against them and the Geneva Convention's article 3 has been preserved.

But no one is saying how this was achieved.

I'm very confused! Can anyone explain the details about all this?