ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First Glance

Posted: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:23 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under:

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, and Jennifer Colby
Congress remains out for another week while Bush engages in some high-stakes negotiations abroad, first at the NATO summit in Latvia and then in Jordan at his meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  The White House calls the meeting part of Bush's effort to consult with a wide array of sources in deciding the best way forward in Iraq.  It comes as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the Bush Administration near completion of their respective reports. 

The White House is objecting this morning to descriptions of the Iraq conflict as a civil war.  National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "The violence is primarily centered around Baghdad and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi Security Forces is at the top of the agenda when [Bush and Maliki] meet later this week."  Why does the terminology matter?  Because, among other reasons, the greater the perception among Americans that Iraqis are fighting amongst themselves, the greater the doubts may be about continued US involvement and the greater the sentiment, perhaps, in favor of troop withdrawal.  An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in mid-October found 40% saying
Iraqis are fighting each other in a civil war, while 31% said Iraqis and foreign terrorists are fighting US troops, and 26% said it's some of both.

After they return to Washington next week, Congress may adjourn faster than expected.  The outgoing GOP majority is now expected to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government into early next year, setting up a timetable by which Democrats will be working on spending bills at the same time the White House is working on its budget.  The House may
leave town after just a week, while the Senate sticks around longer to vote on Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates.

The incoming Democratic House majority plans to hold tutorials on Iraq and the economy next week.  NBC political analyst Charlie Cook says that whether or not Democrats move to establish an independent ethics commission could become a defining issue of the early days of their return to power.  Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi's choice of whether to promote
impeached former judge and Rep. Alcee Hastings to Intelligence Committee chair, or pick a chair with less ethical baggage, looms as her next big personnel decision.

The Republican governors will gather in Miami later this week to discuss the midterm election results.  Outgoing Republican Governors Association chair and 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney will preside.  Retiring Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman will give his first big speech since the election.

Tom Vilsack, the retiring Democratic governor of Iowa, will formally announce his campaign for president in his adopted hometown on Mt. Pleasant on Thursday, followed by a tour that will take him to Concord, NH; his actual hometown of Pittsburgh; Des Moines, where his campaign HQ is located; Las Vegas; and Columbia, SC.  The stop in Pittsburgh suggests
that Vilsack plans to highlight his life story as an orphan with an adoptive mother who was an alcoholic.  The zig-zagging across the country reflects the new reality of a Democratic presidential nominating calendar that includes a second-in-the-nation caucus in Nevada. 

Vilsack's candidacy also raises questions about Iowa's dominance of the Democratic calendar.  Although he has yet to top any polls of Iowa caucus-goers, one or a few candidates in the potentially very crowded field may use his candidacy as an excuse to skip the state.  Still, recent contenders for president who have skipped Iowa -- Democrats Joe Lieberman and Wes Clark in 2004, and John McCain (R) in 2000 -- ultimately failed
to win their party's nomination.  Also, the possibility that one or more big states like California, Florida, and/or Michigan might hold much earlier contests than usual could make Iowa even more important as a springboard because of the size of those states and the cost of advertising there.

Democratic National Committee officials will meet in Washington on  Saturday, where they'll discuss the way the calendar is shaping up and possible incentives to keep states from holding their contests too early.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Clearly some Iraqis are fighting each other. It's not the US who's kidnapping, torturing, and killing people and dumping their bodies. Civil war or no, there is little the US can do about it if even the local police are implicated or stand idly by.
It seems clear to me the Iraqis are fighting each other and its based on religious beliefs. Call it what you want, I believe this has been going on for centuries, but the US acted on Misinformation, Miscalculation, or misplaced belief that we would come out as heros uncorked this vast resivoir of hatered toward one another and it won't go away. Our presence there is not making it better and there seems to be no way out.
the administration wants to avoid calling what is happening in Iraq a cicil war, because, if it gets labelled as such, it means we lost. So, I do not see this administration doing anything other than "stay the course" for the duration of their term.
Whether he's denying that Iraq has fallen into a civil war or that New Orleans, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and the rest of the storm zone need more than $110 billion to recover from Katrina, President Bush is clearly "Cleopatra, the Queen of Denial...."
Good one Olivia Burdon...NOT
How many weeks/days off do the members of Congress get? Is it my imagination? They always seem to be on some type of holiday. Why can't they work like the rest of us. Granted they need to check in with their constituants periodically, but they do not need so many days off. If the rest of us worker bees and grunts had the same number of days off, the economy would be worse than it already is. Don't "we" the employers of these people deserve representatives that actually represent us?
Six years of "executive" incompetence has begotten the present "executive" incontinence. The White House can call the current Iraqi cataclysm whatever new word they can coin, or they may simply redefine an old word. Whatever creative appellation they may invent, where I come from, the common term for the neurotic combination of nightmares and loss of control was "wetting the bed."
I hope you liberals now see that we are less safe because democrats are in power. Iraq was just fine a month ago. You people just empowered the Sunnis with your vote.
Congressional perks are written by Congress. Go figure. I wish I could write and approve my benefits package at work. As for Iraq- as a moderate- I call it a civil war, when one group of Iraqis is killing another group of Iraqis. The Iraqis need to grab the belts and drive the forigien insurgnts from thier country, then rein in the gangs or militas. Otherwise, the Sadr milita will become like Hizbollah and rule w/o legal fiat in an unstable land. We Westerners have no place trying to dictate peace; we need to pull back to protect the innocents from the violence and lend a hand were asked.
We are less safe if we allow the exttreme members of either party carte blanche, for these idealists do not deal in realities. The progressives, the moderates and the social conservatives need to bind together for fiscal control, an intelligent, workable domestic policy plan thsat benefits all Americans and not the select few favorites and to rein in a sadly misguided belief that the United States will club your country to oblivion if one disagrees with our global economic and security ideals and policies. moderation, not extremism can solve many issues. Put down the overblown political rhetoric and get to working for America!!
i think that you guys should pull the troops out away from the proublem and if needed they can go back in,but for right now just bring them home. let them fight with each other.
"I hope you liberals now see that we are less safe because democrats are in power. Iraq was just fine a month ago. You people just empowered the Sunnis with your vote." If you define "just fine" as the bloodiest month in 2 years then yeah, Iraq was just fine a monthe ago and its all the evil Democrats' fault that the Iraqis suddenly want to kill eachother!
If it walks like a duck ...
"I hope you liberals now see that we are less safe because democrats are in power. Iraq was just fine a month ago. You people just empowered the Sunnis with your vote." So - if we just roll over and let Bush impose the police state in this country he and so many "loyal" Americans seem to crave, the war in Iraq would disolve into thin air? I sure hope you're being sarcastic, or at least not a product of the US educational system.
If the USA government (i.e., the Bush administration) takes the position that a state of civil war exists in Iraq, then the USA government is stating that there are at least two sides at war with each other. Additionally, by officially recognizing a state of civil war exists, the USA Government must then decide which faction our government will officially support. Therefore, I would like for all the brilliant Americans who see so clearly that Bush MUST admit that a state of civil war exists to tell me which side the USA is obligated to support? And unless NBC has a clear and definitive answer for this question, NBC has a moral obligation to withdraw its attempt to manipulate USA foreign policy.
John who do you hate more terrorists or liberals. What have liberals done to be blessed with all your hate. Terrorists win when we attack each other. WOW John, you are doing exactly what the terrorists want. Why do you hate your fellow americans so much. Did a liberal beat you when you were a kid. People like you John, who make up their own reality to fit their tiny lives scare me more than any terrorist. Why , because you are acting like a terrorist. What did liberals do to create this mess in Iraq.I think president Bush was the one that decided to go to war in Iraq. So quit trying to create staw men for your little argument of hate. Why don't you place the blame at the source: The Cowboy president and the do nothing congress. Remember John, it is better to be thought a fool then to write and remove any doubt.
Iraq has 30 million people and a hundred of them are dying every day in the midst of the conflict. We have 300 million. If America was caught up in such violence and a thousand averge citizens were dying a day, some accidently killed by a foreign army who was tearing around, what would the other average citizens call it? I'd call it a Civil War with a bunch of Foreign Legionaires caught in the middle. Like the Vietnam War? Yes, like both of the Vietnam Wars. The one with the French Foreign Legion and the one with the American Foreign Legion, caught in the middle. You can call it what you want to call it. By the way, the total troops killed in the U.S. Civil War was 620,000. I hope nobody wants that as the standard.
W.R. Stricklin, College Park, Maryland: don't you believe it. It's just like peek-a-boo: if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. The brilliant Bush administration has everything under control, and ALWAYS meets it's obligations, legal, moral and ethical. PPhhhhhtttt!
Brits day they're out of there by the end of next year. Guess they decided their mission is almost complete and it is time for them to leave. Bush will not call this a civil war because to do so would mean admitting defeat. Therefore, the argument is mute, because the President will not say those words, so we will stay there. NBC is relying on people familar with stragey and conflict, and since those people are American citizens, they do have a right to set foreign policy.
I am no expert on war, civil wars or foreign policy, so I may be too simplistic in my opinions of the options we have in Iraq....one is to keep doing what we are doing, losing our brave men and women in a nasty war of attrition, a war we'll never 'win' as it is impossible to fight a whole population. Two : partition Iraq into the 3 main sects and then play policeman for years on end, or Three : Pull out and let the civil warring partys have at it, let them kill and massacre each other. When the 'fittest' emerge as the victor, sweep in and take advantage of their control and consolidation, turn them into our allies. All 3 of those options really are distasteful at best, and could have horrific results at worst. Does anyone out there see a better option than any I have considered? This is a very tough situation our fearless leader and his neo-con-poops have put us in, I hope someone much wiser than I can put forth better options.
We should back neither side, for it is not our biz. just as we denied Brit and French intervention in our Civil War, although European desperation for cotton was tough on both sides. We need to back out, let the Iraqis fight it out, while giving aid in the area to keep others out of their fight and not letting it spill everywhere. We made the same mistake in SE Asia, for it too was a struggle for national soveriegnity that got blown up as Soviet conquest.
"I hope you liberals now see that we are less safe because democrats are in power. Iraq was just fine a month ago. You people just empowered the Sunnis with your vote." First of all, what Lee Steele and Tim from NY said. Second, chronology and causality are two very different things. I'd explain it to Mr. Roche but I don't think he cares. Enjoy the view from Bush Co. land while it lasts there pal...
We can not support the Suni, since we dethroned their power party, the shia are aligned with the Iranians and we promised Turkey that the kurds would not have their own state. We are at the dance, but with no one to dance. I guess we could be fight all three groups and unify Iraq.
It is a tough nut to crack, was the by product of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the discovery of oil. Sadly, there is no noe good solution, it wil have to come in bits and pieces. the West and the US will have to make concessions in order to gain ground. Our goal should be to stabilize regional security, provide security for those who request it and ensure the desire to have free trade protected. Power plays wil backfire, as the Islamic crowd hates the West w/ undying, enflamed passion!
Where do we, as a country, get off telling Iraq how to form a government; how to split the country into federal zones? Yes we invaded, crushed Saddaam and have stepped on our zipper since then. But Baker, Hamilton, Bush Corp, Biden, Gen Pace, Madeline Albright, Henry K, Bill n Hill- how do these folks "tell" the Iraqis what to do? If they want an Islamic theocracy- so be it. A Shiite cleric w/ dictatrorail powers- so be it. Kurdish led revolt in the north- so be it. We need to let them govern, w/ US giving aid and assistance in the region, to protect the weak, to protect free trade. Get our troops out of thew way, use only a rapid response to regional emergency. Americna politicans- get off your pompous throne- we dictate to NO sovereign country. how about North korea telling us how to handle our border security issues? Venezula telling us how to develop fodssil fuels? France giving us dioectives on education reform? Hah..so get out of Iraq, before it is tooooooooo late.
There are no good options here. It is precisely the kind of mess real conservatives sought to avoid, with a cautious look-before-you-leap approach to foreign affairs. Unfortunately, we haven't had a conservative administration nor political party for some time. Today, I'm not sure most Republicans even know what the word means.
"Where do we, as a country, get off telling Iraq how to form a government" an excellent question, especially when it's President "we're not going to be nation builders" doing the telling?
You know, Bush and his buddies could probably safely say that Iraq is in a civil war now. They could blame the Democrats being elected as having started it. They could say that if people had only voted Republican that we would have still been winning in Iraq. If they tried real hard, they could probably say it was all Bill Clinton's falut. They could say it was the fault of the American people for electing Democrats to the House and Senate. They could say this, but does that make it so? I don't think so. Who believes them anymore?
I don't think there is anything civil about the Iraq war at all and i really think there should be a moratorium on using the oxymoron "civil war."
What - pray tell - is to be gained by naming the mess in Iraq a "civil war." The only purpose that I can see is to place blame on Bush and in no way do I see doing so as serving any constuctive purpose. Yes, by any definition Iraq is a mess - but nobody wants a rapid American departure. That is - no one other than those who wish to exploit the sitution for gain. And I see at least two groups who wish to gain. Those who seek possible political and financial gain in the USA (i.e., the die-hard Democrats and NBC by increasing viewership of their news broadcasts) and those in the Middle East who wish to drive the region back into the Dark Ages. We are in a mess. Constuctive criticism of Bush is absolutely valid, but I see nothing constructive in terms of USA interests in trying to force the Bush Administration to use the term "Civil War." The Democrats have gained control of both houses of congress. Let's see some action that supports the position taken by the UN and all of the responsible countries surrounding Iraq - and all of these groups say "no rapid pullout by the USA." And to my knowledge the issue of naming the mess in Iraq a "civil war" or otherwise has little or no importance outside those seeking political gain or seeking to market the 6 o'clock news in the USA.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=15796

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google