Politics
Shadow of Clinton War Vote Hangs Over Other 2016 Contenders
Julie Pace, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cast a vote in favor of the Iraq war that would later come to haunt her presidential campaign.
Now, a new crop of senators eying the White House — Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — will face a similar choice over authorizing military action in the Middle East.
A vote in favor of President Barack Obama’s use-of-force resolution would give the potential candidates a share of the responsibility for the outcome of military action in a combustible region. And as Clinton learned well, the public’s support for a military campaign can quickly fade, making the long-term implications of the vote difficult to predict.
Obama asked lawmakers this week to approve a three-year offensive against the Islamic State group and affiliated forces. His request includes no constraints on geographical boundaries but would bar “enduring offensive combat” — intentionally vague language that some lawmakers fear leaves open the prospect of a U.S.-led ground war.
So far, most of the 2016 hopefuls currently in Congress have sidestepped questions about how they would vote on Obama’s measure, which could be amended before they have to say yes or no. Among Republicans, Rubio has been perhaps the most specific in outlining his views, saying he opposes the president putting constraints on his ability to use military force against an enemy.
“What we need to be authorizing the president to do is to destroy them and to defeat them, and allow the commander in chief — both the one we have now and the one who will follow — to put in place the tactics, the military tactics, necessary to destroy and defeat ISIL,” Rubio said, using a common acronym for the Islamic State group.
A spokesman for Paul said Friday that the senator is reviewing the legislation but has not decided how he would vote. Cruz has called for Congress to “strengthen” the legislation by making sure the president is committed to clear objectives. He also has suggested the authorization should include a provision to directly arm the Iraqi Kurds, but it is unclear what other changes he wants to see.
Despite Americans’ war weariness, there is public support for formally authorizing the mission. An NBC News/Marist poll released Friday showed that 54 percent of respondents want their member of Congress to vote for Obama’s request.
Clinton, who is laying the groundwork for another presidential run, will also be pressed to take a position. But this time around, she will have the advantage of weighing in from the outside, without the pressure of voting.
“You can talk about the subject without actually being pinned down on a particular vote that you’re going to have to defend for years to come,” said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to the late Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who worked to get Clinton and other Democrats to vote against the 2002 war authorization.
Clinton has made no public comments since Obama sent lawmakers the draft legislation earlier this week, and her spokesman did not respond to a fresh request for her position Friday.
The former secretary of state has previously called the fight against the Islamic State a “long-term struggle” and has said military action is essential to prevent the group from making further advances.
The military campaign against the Islamic State militants began six months ago, and Obama is, in effect, seeking Congress’ approval retroactively. He has said the current mission is legally justified under the 2002 authorization President George W. Bush used to start the Iraq war — the resolution Clinton voted for.
By the time Obama and Clinton faced off in the 2008 Democratic primary, the Iraq war was deeply unpopular. Obama saw Clinton’s vote for the military conflict as a way to draw a distinction with his better-known rival, arguing that while he was not in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted against giving Bush the war powers.
The 2002 vote and its political implications have continued to shadow the way lawmakers have responded to war-power requests.
In 2013, Congress balked at Obama’s request to authorize strikes in Syria and never held a vote. And while congressional leaders pushed the president for months to seek authorization for the Islamic State campaign, lawmakers insisted Obama be the one to actually draft a resolution.
As with Obama’s current request, there was public support for Bush’s Iraq resolution in 2002. A Gallup Poll a few weeks before the high-stakes vote found that 57 percent of Americans said Congress should “pass a resolution to support sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” About 38 percent said it should not.
As the Iraq war dragged on, and the death toll and financial costs mounted, the conflict became deeply unpopular.
By the time Clinton and Obama were facing off for the Democratic nomination, surveys showed a majority of Americans believed going into Iraq was the wrong decision — a warning for potential 2016 candidates trying to read the tea leaves ahead of their own war powers vote.
___
AP writer Ken Thomas and AP News Survey Director Emily Swanson contributed to this report.
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
###
Commentary
Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record
NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.
The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.
Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.
“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.
Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.
Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.
“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.
As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.
In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”
Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.
The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.
With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”
Commentary
Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies
She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.
By Emil Guillermo
She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.
If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.
She belongs in the White House.
Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.
Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.
Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.
It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.
And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.
When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.
Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.
But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.
There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.
TRUMP’S LIES
At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”
But the bully just couldn’t do it.
Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.
Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.
And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.
Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.
It was more like general domination.
In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”
When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.
That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.
About the Author
Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1
Bay Area
Mayor Sheng Thao Issues Executive Order to Shut Down Homeless Encampments
Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao issued an executive order on Monday directing all city departments to enforce the 2020 encampment management policy and begin a much more diligent approach to homeless encampment sweeping. “Being homeless is not a crime in Oakland, but it doesn’t give the right to break other laws,” Thao said in a video statement.
The order comes months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass v Johnson decision to allow local municipalities the right to close encampments even if no shelter is available.
By Magaly Muñoz
Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao issued an executive order on Monday directing all city departments to enforce the 2020 encampment management policy and begin a much more diligent approach to homeless encampment sweeping.
“Being homeless is not a crime in Oakland, but it doesn’t give the right to break other laws,” Thao said in a video statement.
The order comes months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass v Johnson decision to allow local municipalities the right to close encampments even if no shelter is available.
The encampment policy prohibits camps in “high sensitivity areas” such as schools, businesses, walkways, recreational centers, and parks.
Thao said that prioritizing which camps will close down immediately will come down to where they are located, such as the high sensitivity areas, and the public safety concerns the camps attract, such as fires, violent crimes, and illegal dumping.
Oakland joins other California cities, including their Bay Area neighbors San Francisco and Berkeley, in a calculated approach to cracking down on the homelessness crisis.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed has been vocal in her decision to increase sweeping and get people off of the streets, which many have criticized as a political ploy as she seeks reelection this fall.
Thao followed up her executive order with another video Tuesday afternoon, where she and Assistant City Administrator Harold Duffey walked through the Martin Luther King Way encampment, stating the city recently cleared out 40 tons of debris from the littered area.
The city began clearing out the encampment early last week with some reports saying that staff threw away people’s personal belongings, including a wheelchair.
The mayor’s office did not respond for comment at the time of publication.
About 40 people were living in the camp, according to the City. Sixteen people received shelter, nine enrolled in a county medical respite program, and 12 individuals declined offers of shelter and self-relocated. An individual with two broken legs was also taken to the hospital.
In the video, Duffey explained that two weeks prior to an encampment closure, outreach teams are asked to visit the site and pair people with services and offer temporary housing.
Although there are offers of shelter being made at sweeps, Thao’s executive order states that in no way will “emergency or urgent closures be delayed for shelter unavailability,” meaning sites can be closed down and people will have to disperse even if they have nowhere else to go.
Duffey clarified that although workers cleared out a massive amount of debris from the MLK site, the city is aware that the illegal dumping is often coming from individuals targeting encampments to litter the area because it’s easier to place blame on the people already living there.
Thao shared her experience of homelessness in both video statements, saying she lived in her car with her son after she escaped an abusive relationship. She added that she never once thought about “pitching a tent on the streets.”
Advocates are upset at the recent order, arguing it will exacerbate the harm to unhoused Oaklanders.
Talya Husbands-Hankin, founder of Love and Justice in the Streets, said the order will force these vulnerable residents into unsafe conditions because of the failure to provide permanent housing. She added that this action is aligning itself with values of a Trump-appointed Supreme Court and is “contrary to the values of justice and equity that Oaklanders want to uphold.”
“We know that sweeps are not the answer, and we urge Mayor Thao to redirect all resources into immediately opening public land for community-led solutions and funding permanent housing to uplift human rights for all Oakland residents,” Husbands-Hankin said.
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Jaylen Brown and Jason Kidd’s $5 Billion Plans
-
Activism3 weeks ago
OPINION: Why the N-Word Should Be Eliminated from Schools: A Call to Educators, Parents and Students
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
African American Historic Ties to Blue Jeans Revealed in Indigo-Dyeing Workshop at Black-Eyed Pea Festival
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of September 11 -17, 2024
-
California Black Media3 weeks ago
Opinion: California Ethnic Media Celebrates Its Purpose — And People
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections
-
Community3 weeks ago
President Dixon’s Vision for College of Alameda
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
San Jose Jazz Fest ‘24: Fun, Food and an Unforgettable Frankie Beverly Farewell