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: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:05 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under:

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, Lauren Appelbaum, and Carrie Dann
Politics abhors a vacuum, and the delay in the debate over the resolutions opposing a US troop increase in Iraq is giving some of the bigger participants time to jockey for better positions.  Two leading presidential candidates have further fleshed out their stances on the war, and the White House and Democratic Hill leadership have announced the formation of a bipartisan working group to discuss the way forward.

NBC's Ken Strickland reports that the still unnamed group would be assembled by Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, likely consisting of chairs and ranking members of the committees with oversight of national security issues.  The group "offers the best prospect for meaningful bipartisan consultations," per Reid spokesman Jim Manley.  He added that leadership will urge President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and some Cabinet members to attend the meetings, the first of which will be next week.  Strickland notes that a similar idea was first introduced last December by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I) and Susan Collins (R), leaders of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee. 

Sen. Barack Obama (D), in a speech on the Senate floor last night, called for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March 31, 2008 in order to end "a foreign policy disaster," although he did not endorse a cut-off in funding.  His proposal goes further than those offered by his viable competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Obama is the only one of them who did not vote in favor of the war (not being in the Senate at the time), and he has consistently opposed it.

Next up came Sen. John McCain (R), whose support for the troop increase places him squarely on the opposite side of majority public opinion, and who has been seeking to temper his stance at the margins by arguing, for example, that Bush's proposed 21,500-troop increase probably isn't enough, and by criticizing Gen. George Casey's work as commander of US forces in Iraq.

Now McCain says the Administration has failed to adequately supply him with information critical to Bush's new strategy.  Strickland reports that in a statement released last night, McCain and Armed Services chair Carl Levin said the Administration, after repeated requests, has not provided enough details on the benchmarks Bush has said he'll hold the Iraqis to.  Over the past two months, Levin has sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice two letters seeking clarification on those benchmarks and any timelines associated with them.  McCain signed onto a third letter earlier this month, Strickland says.  In that letter, he and Levin said they found it "both baffling and disturbing" that Rice would not provide the information. 

Per their statement, Rice finally did respond with a document presumably adopted by the Iraqis last year on political, security, economic benchmarks.  But the senators felt the document "vividly demonstrates the failure of the Iraqi Government to meet the vast majority of its commitments."  Rice also listed additional commitments made by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but again, without details or timelines.  "What Secretary Rice’s letter makes abundantly clear is that the Administration does not intend to attach meaningful consequences for the Iraqis’ continuing to fail to meet their commitments," they said. 

And Sen. Joe Biden (D) finally/formally enters the presidential race today, filing online and announcing via the Internet.  His campaign homepage's lead graphic shows Biden's image superimposed on a map of the Middle East.  He also marks his announcement with another hearing on Iraq in his Foreign Relations Committee, which will feature former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright.

On the economy, President Bush is likely to lose out to the Fed for Wall Street's attention today.  Bush delivers part two of his economic State of the Union in Federal Hall on the Street later this morning.  The Fed will meet to discuss interest rates -- though probably not change them -- and issue comments about inflation and the state of the economy this afternoon.  CNBC's Patti Domm expects to hear some of the same message Bush used in his State of the Union address last week, tailored to Wall Street.  But, she says, the Street knows the issues already, and unless Bush is going to unload something new and big, his remarks won't capture much attention.  A Washington-based economic analyst tells First Read that "Bush might get attention if he made a genuine effort on entitlement reform or ratcheted down pressure on Iran." 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Bob./ You've obviously crossed a line somewhere if something you wrote didn't make it on. It's happened to me a number of times, but I don't worry about it. I know I'm a smart aleck on occasion and suffer the occasional diarrhea of the mouth, or in this case, keyboard. I trust Elizabeth, Mark, and Huma to edit out anything that they feel needs to be vetted, and go on. Editing doesn't stop my brain in its' tracks, there's always another inane subject that will send it off in an entirely new direction, and within nanoseconds, I've forgotten one thing, and focused on a new thing. By and large, I feel they probably have as good a senses of humors, as any editors I have been enslaved to.
Ay Jay, Tx. You still didn't answer my question. Are we in Iraq for a lifetime in the Defense of Israel forever? Joe LIE-BER-MAN seems to never want take our troops out and bring them back home. On another matter concerning the Middle East is, Remember that Menachim Begin was one of the very first "Terrorist" in the Palestine Countries. His land grab, terrorisim and occupation of Palestinian land lead the dispute in the Middle East. Our government has supplied Israel with the most sophisticated arms, weapons and money ($2.5 Billion per year to keep our presents in the Middle East. Once Saudi Arabia was our turn to allies, but with the threat from Osama Bin Laden they were afraid that they would be the next WTC and asked the U.S. Military to leave the "Holy Land" So Ay Jay this is why we are stuck in Iraq and until someone bigger than the USA comes along to boot us out, we can expect our troops to have the bulleye on their backs. Devoid of all the information against this invasion, this commander-in-chief will have to declare "martial Law" which is close now by all the Military leaders in command of virtually every thing or to blame the liberals for the mistakes they caused, Why was Jim O'Beirne picked to stack the L. Paul Bremmer CPA? Just another incompenate political hack that voted for Bush. The Emerald Embassy in Iraq gives a full account to the direct lies, decite, and mistakes. How many as your brothers are you willing to sacrific for this a power grab by these world wide thieves in this administration?.
Ay Jay: You can't solve the Iraq problem with a 'surge/escalation'. What is the answer ? How about NEGOTIATING. The Iraq Study Group suggested negotiating with Iran and Syria. Bush wants war with Iran. The answer is to NEGOTIATE with Iran, Syria, the Shiias, the Sunnis and the Kurds. You are trying to set up a false choice: either support Bobo Deluxe or withdraw completely. Why not negotiate ?
Hey Mike...guess what? I DID that. I put myself through an undergraduate degree in political science, and then I put myself through law school. And guess what? For about 6 years, I had no health insurance because I couldn't afford to pay several hundred dollars a month for it. I'm very fortunate that I remained healthy during that time period but not everyone is so lucky. Nor is everyone able to get into the higher income bracket simply by getting a job or going to college. If it was that easy, there would be no poverty in this country. Going to college requires money; getting a job requires opportunity. This is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. There are so many obstacles to lifting yourself out of poverty, and clearly you don't understand any of them.
Spunky monkey .... i should remind you that Republicans were in control for six years..the result.. a war which is in chaos and out of control and sadly over 3,000 dead americans ....republicans had their chance and blew it ....
Darren Pope- Funny, that's what many people in America say about the current administration. How can anyone have faith in what the Bush administration says after their gross miscalculations? There's plenty of blame to go around. But I forget, if anyone says anything opposing the current administration's policies (no matter how small) we are unpatriotic (forget that we do live in a democracy, I guess you could call it an oligarchy now). Again I ask you, (how many times have I asked this and you have yet to answer?)If the current "surge" or "escalation" policy does not produce any progress and the level of violence stays the same or worsens, same low turn out of Iraqi legislator participation (less than a majority), same amount of Iraqi army and police personnel loyal to organizations other than a unity government (read militias, which is happening), same amount of Iraqi army troops just not showing up or disappearing for periods of time (happening), same low electric output (lower than pre-war levels), etc., etc., etc., What Next? If this war is so important why is no one but the military and their families being asked to sacrifice? It the war is so important, everyone should be asked to sacrifice, blood or money. It was absolutely appalling and outrageous that Bush said "people are sacrificing, their sacrificing their piece of mind." Until these questions are answered by this administration with some semblance of reality, I don't want my loved one in harms way another second.
I have no problem with negotiation, but WHO are you going to negotiate with? These small fractured factions with intricate alliances and webs of friends and enemies will be hard to deal with, nay, practically impossible to deal with on a comprehensive basis, and cannot be expected to unify under one banner to be negotiated with, let alone be expected to comply with the agreement that would result from any negotiation. Besides, I don't see much of a chance that many of these parties have any interest whatsoever in negotiating. That would acutally set them back, seeing as the effects of terror and mayhem have been quite dramatic on the American public...Better than any negotiation they could have hoped for. They don't have to trade anything but a few of their lives for ours to intimidate us into withdrawing, and they get free reign to kill and destroy when we leave. I would have no problem with negotiating with Syria and Iran, but what leverage do we have to bring to the table? They have no reason to come to the table at all. With the current situation and the weakness of America at home, they know it is just a matter of time that America pulls out with the current situation if they do nothing at all. If anything, they'll talk a lot to keep us baited, and increase the aid to insurgents and sponsored terror elements. If we could actually get them to commit to an honest good faith negotiation, what could they really do anyways. They "control" their borders, yes, but not nearly adequately enough to stop weapons and men from getting into Iraq. They can't really at all control events inside Iraq in any other way than this flow of arms and men..... We need be in Iraq only long enough to stabilize it to the point where the Iraqi government can more or less maintain some semblance of civil order. Once that point is reached, we need to get the bulk of our forces out ASAP, except for perhaps some longer deployments of trainers and a quick strike force to deal with major terrorist events. I am completely FOR getting out of there as soon as Iraq is feasably stabile on its own. It is clearly not there yet, which is why a premature withdrawl is an invitation for chaos. We may end up trading saving a few American lives now, with having to spend many many more down the road in a UN effort to stamp out expanded regional violence if Iraq collapses. Who can tell the future? I believe that with the right approach, that insurgencies can be supressed to the point where they are manageable to the host society/nation alone, ergo Ireland, or the Phillipines. It wouldn't be easy, but it is possible, and IF possible, would plainly be the best solution over all. I know that it is likely that the Sunni and Shia extremists will be fighting until the end of time, but with a strong, stabile central government, the fighting could be suppressed and contained. The issue is whether or not we can get to the point of having that type of government in Iraq. Other nations with both populations in the region have strong central governments that are effectively keeping order right now ,today. Maybe they aren't the most democratic, but they are working. Turkey for example.. Or Jordan. You don't see massive uprisings there, but maybe sporadic terror at worst, yet something manageable. I don't see why Americans are so pessimistic, and self-doubting. We can win to the point of a stable Iraq if we want to, the question is only if we have the will. Some of us do, but is plain many don't. If we do end up in failure, that failure will have consequences. Let us hope in that event that those consequences don't become worse than the war/police action itself is.
Once again I see someone saying that if we don't stop Bush he'll be a dictator soon. Funny, that has been said for a while now and it still hasn't happened. I'll give my same response. If he is working for dictatorship and can control elections, why did the Dems sweep to power in November?
Darren, you are right, planning an end to war is difficult - more so than planning to start a war. And if one plans the war ineptly, such as by misunderstanding his enemy or battle ground, then it is extremely difficult to plan victory, an exit or an end to it. Second, Iraq did not attack the US, Bush and Co. had plenty of time to plan the war correctly. They did not. The analogy you make to WWII is incorrect - Viet Nam is more akin to this situation. One could call it a quagmire. So back to my main point I stated earlier - the United Nations should be fully engaged, equipped and supported by its member states to take control of the Middle East. It's a very large job that will take a great deal of planning and cooperation and diplomacy. But the alternative will be catastrophic if things continue as they are.
Dogg, these folks that allude to W becoming a dictator are simply under the illusion that the president is supposed to abide by the Constitution and serve the wil of the people.
Steve Turner: "Bipartisan" in this Administration, actually means "Bipolar". Do you remember in the movie, "A Fish Called Wanda", where Jamie Leigh Curtis said "to call you stupid is to insult all stupid people"? Well, speaking as someone who is Bipolar, I would rather not be compared in any way to this administration, if you don't mind.
The Dogg in Florida, The Democrats won in Nov. 06 mainly due to the lies and the loss of 3,000 brave military who were just following orders. Today Jan. 31, 2007 the 1,389 th day since "Mission Accomplished" with 3,079 dead military from a war of choice. The public got tired on slogans and different plans that didn't work. They got tired of the wasteful spending and the giddiness of the defense stockholders. Just plain and simple we got tired of Karl Rove/Cheney/Bush and these supporters that buy election (Joe LIE-BER-MAN, couldn't take defeat by Ned Larmont, so he begged his deep pockets supporter to keep his seat warm in the Senate and defeated a good honest worker) and by calling people un-american or unpatriotic. The economy is supposed to be great, but we have page after page of foreclosure notices in the Providence Journal each day. Maybe Mr. Dogg of Florida, it was someone told them (Lou Dobbs) that two of our border patrol agents are in prison for doing their job, as catching a drugsmuggler from mexico and in return the Justice Dept gave immunity to the drug dealer to press charges aginst Ramos & Compose for shooting at him and capturing him. Nice reward, they did their job and got sent to prison for 10 years while the drug dealer sues the U.S. government for, get this now, five ($5) million dollars as his civil rights were violated. Not even one word from this so-called commander-in-chief about the inquiry from at least 55 congressman or Senators asking him to review their case. In case anyone wants to call and protest about the 10 year prison sentence call the Attorney General Office in Washington D.C. at 1-202-514-2001 or the Whitehouse hot line at 1-202-456-1111 and make yor voice heard about how our border patrol agents are being treated. Our troops are being killed daily to protect we americans, but the border patrol can not capture a drugsmuggler and our National guard has to back away from illegal immigrants carring weapons. Something definitely is wrong with this situation and that my friend Mr. Dogg from Florida is why the door is finally opened for our,constitutional rights of, we the people, for the people and of the people and the USA can see the real shambles of this government. Watch Lou Dobbs (CNN), Chris Mathews "Hardball" (MSNBC), or "Countdowns" Keith Olberman (MSNBC) a Republican named Joe Scarbough (MSNBC)after "Countdown. Want the real news, then turn off the FOX noise channel and listen to what concerns Americans the most.
Dogg. Mussolini thought he had the Dictator thing all worked out. He ended up hanging by his feet from a lamp post with his mistress.
Carrie, good for you I'm glad you made it...and yes I do know a lot about poverty without going into specifics my wife who's a Democrat and up until recently a Social Worker has had a huge impact and dispelled many myths I (and I freely admit) in my own ignorance once had about the poor. In each case aside from mental issues (which is quite common in for the homeless) if people wanted to work hard and pull themselves up they did. The word is IF. And it's a lot easier to be handed something than to work toward it or change a career when the demand for your trade has and will continue to diminish. If you want it bad enough you can make it happen and you Carrie are just another example of how great the opportunities are in this country IF you are willing to work hard and sacrafice. Now if you had God forbid gotton sick or had an accident and needed healthcare you would not have been turned away from care even if you couldn't pay for it at the time. Why do you think so many of us have problems with the illegals we're paying for (in the billions) their (unisured) healthcare public schooling etc. in our taxes. You cannot get turned away from medical treatment in this country so in essence we already have free health care the difference is the quality and I for one am not willing to give up the quality of my health care. So I have a problem of wateriing down our health care system for people who chose not to work hard and smart. I understand there are some execptions but for the most part if you chose not to adapt or not to work hard to get the kind of life and benefits that go along with it then I chose not to share what I've worked so hard for. If that sounds harsh too bad that's why I live in America if I didn't want to work hard and I wanted a free ride with small expectations in living standards I would move...that's why France was invented.
Working on it: I know how you feel - I think referring to Cheney as "Vice President" is an insult to vice.
I have a solution, the same way you send a kid to his room until it is cleaned up. . . put the oval office in the middle of one of Sadaam's palace's and make Bush stay there 'til he has cleaned up his mess. We can handle stuff here until he gets back.
.--LOL--"referring to Cheney as 'Vice President' is an insult to vice." When I was 7 or so, I asked Dad what "Vice" means. He replied, "Something naughty," However, I'd been thinking of "Vice" as in "Vice President"--but judging from how some Vice Presidents we've had have acted, the conclusion I'd drawn from my Dad's reply back then wasn't far off the mark. (How did the term "Vice President" originate, anyway?)
"You cannot get turned away from medical treatment in this country." With all due respect, Mike, that's a complete crock. You may get all bandaged up but that doesn't mean you will get fixed. And even if you do, you have the pleasure of being saddled with debts you will never be able to pay because, let's face it, if you could pay them you probably could afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not saying that it's impossible to lift yourself out of poverty but I do think that you oversimplify it. Part of the problem is that in many areas there is such a culture of poverty that people have given up hope. And if you don't have hope, you are not going to try. When doors have been slammed in your face day after day and year after year, you eventually stop knocking. Now, maybe you look at that as being weak and giving up. I look at that as being human.
Thomas Edison failed over 2000 times but the very light you see present everywhere is because he didn't give up. You're right people give up but it's a choice there are few exceptions for every one person that's given up I can show you someone in the exact same position that didn't. You Carrie didn't give up and I'm sure it was an extremely difficult challenge but someone somewhere in the same situation like you gave up. I for one do not wish to foot the bill for people who decide they would rather give up. I feel bad for them but just the same if one of their peers could do it why couldn't they. I guess we must agree to disagree.
Well said Carrie, not everything is black and white. We are talking about human lives, and there is no such thing as universal health care. If you dont have money you are given an aspirin and sent on your way. Or you are left to sit in the emergency waiting room while everyone with insurance is ushered in before you.
Olivia and spunky munky, go to "Rising from the Ruin" on this site. Read the last diary entry and then decide if Mississippi has had such a speedy recovery. Go down to the Mississippi Coast and see for yourselves if Mississippi had only 20 percent of the damage. Open your eyes.
Jane, Olivia is the one that's obssesed with NO not me. She's the one that thinks she knows what's going on and writes a novel about it each time she posts. Please don't put me in the same boat as her because it's sinking like a rock.
spunky munky, you said in one of your posts that the states with republican governors are making speedy recoveries, so I WAS talking to you. Speedy would not be my word for it. Sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about.
"Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby, rock the boat, don't tip the boat forward, rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby, rock the bo--oaT!"
Jane--I have read "Rising from Ruin." That's an excellent blog and I find it interesting--I wish it were updated more often so I'd read it more often. In fact, I do know Mississippi has also been having problems with recovery, which takes time, and I feel for you. But I'm also aware of the state's first-rate political team including the powerful Trent Lott, that has been able to pry help out of the Bush Administration, which Louisiana hasn't been able to.
spunk--If you're not crazy about my "novels," just don't read them, O.K.? Snide remarks about what I say are unnecesary and are just a waste of your time and effort because I feel very strongly about this issue and will continue to post until I'm satisfied with how it's being handled.


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=45917

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