OK, there's more than a little irony in Rep. Nick Lampson, the Texas Democrat who holds Tom Delay's old seat, supporting one of Delay's most expensive pet projects:
Texas congressmen Nick Lampson (D-Stafford) announced Saturday the finalization and signing of a 10-year, $375 million U.S. Department of Energy research and development contract that will be managed in Sugar Land.
The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, a non-profit consortium of research institutions and energy companies, will manage the project from its Sugar Land headquarters. RPSEA is expected to award research contracts to universities, research institutions, national laboratories and industry partners, Lampson said at a press conference at offices RPSEA shares with the Texas Energy Center.
This contract was a particularly controversial part of the 2005 energy bill. Between RPSEA and the Texas Energy Center, there was Delay-connected muck at every turn. Last year the President went so far as to single this project out in calling for cutting tax breaks and funding for the oil and gas industry (although he had already signed the bill containing those very same tax breaks and funding--but that's another story).
So why didn't Congress heed the President's call to ax this program last year? Apparently then-candidate Lampson intervened:
Melanie Kenderdine, vice president of the Gas Technology Institute and a RPSEA board member, said Lampson was instrumental in rescuing the DOE program in May 2006, when [Rep. Ed] Markey [D-MA] offered an amendment in Congress to kill the project.
She said Lampson, who was campaigning for the seat he ultimately won in CD-22, took time out to âeducate his past and future colleaguesâ in the House about the benefits that would accrue from the project RPSEA now will manage.
âWhen I found out there were no limits to what could be done with this research money, it was easy for me to contact Markeyâ¦,â Lampson said. âI was able to get them to understand it was not just an oil subsidy . . ."
So Democrats were actually persuaded to support Tom Delay's boondoggle by Delay's Democratic successor. That's pretty rich.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) announced today on Meet the Press that he intends to run for President again. But it was this portion of his appearance, on the subject of Iraq and the "surge," which caught my attention:
MR. RUSSERT: You said the other day that this is President Bushâs war, and thereâs...
SEN. BIDEN: It is.
MR. RUSSERT: ...thereâs really little Democrats can do. Why not cut off funding for the war?
SEN. BIDEN: Iâve been there, Tim. You canât do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
SEN. BIDEN: You canât do it. Itâsâwhatâbecause it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You canât go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, âYou canât spend the money on this piece and this piece andââheâableâheâll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq?
SEN. BIDEN: Because itâs very difficult toâitâs constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, âWeâre going to tell you you can go, but weâre going to micromanage the war.â When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces.
Biden here is his reliably muddle-headed self. Congress can declare war (or, in this case, resolve to authorize the use of force) but not reverse itself later? Congress cannot redline certain defense expenditures?
Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, what I think he is trying to say is that it would be utterly unproductive for Democrats in Congress to get bogged down in the tactical minutia of our Iraq policy. I completely agree. To surge or not to surge is really not the issue. But it would be nice to see a Democratic presidential contender better able to articulate that notion.
The Chicago Tribune has obtained a copy of a 6,300-word, handwritten letter by radical Muslim cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr describing his abduction in Italy and alleged rendition to Egypt, which has resulted in charges against more than two dozen American CIA operatives and the former chief of Italian intelligence.
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
. . .
Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
. . .
Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.
Update: Meanwhile, in Iran, "a new U.S. campaign to dry up financing for oil and natural gas development poses a threat to the republic's ability to continue exporting oil over the next two decades," reports the LA Times.
* 30 dead in central Baghdad clash between Iraqi Army and gunmen following reports that Sunnis had set up fake checkpoint where they were detaining Shiites, shooting them, and hanging their bodies from lampposts;
* 27 bodies were dumped behind a hospital in Baghdad;
* 72 bodies were recovered around Baghdad on Saturday, most showing signs of torture.
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iranâs uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear âbunker-bustersâ, according to several Israeli military sources.
. . .
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
. . .
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.
Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israelâs tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.
Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval âafter the eventâ, as it did when it crippled Iraqâs nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.
Late update: As I hinted in the parenthetical, it's important to consider the source.
This is worrisome. It comes from a McClatchy report on the likely selection of Ryan Crocker as the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq, replacing Zalmay Khalilzad:
Crocker "must answer: Whose side are we on?" said a State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be identified because the official isn't authorized to speak to the news media. "It is going to be extremely difficult."
We keep hearing about a faction within the Administration that wants to choose sides (i.e., back the Shiite majority) in order, presumably, to bring the civil war to a quicker and more decisive end so that we can declare victory and withdraw. I say presumably because there are so many problems with this approach that trying to tease out its proponents' objectives almost misses the point.
But here's the thing. One might expect that faction to reside at the Pentagon or NSC--but the State Department? That can't be a good sign.