Posted July 12, 2007 – It appears that nothing is going to budge President Bush off his present course on Iraq. Bush, who sees the glass half full, told reporters that it’s too early to draw conclusions from his early report, which he presented Thursday.

In May, Congress ordered the White House to submit a report on progress in
Iraq by September. Amid a growing congressional movement to withdraw U.S. troops from the rising tide of violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush presented a preliminary, or interim, report ahead of the September update.

“Today, my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess … whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks [in Iraq] is or is not being achieved,” the president told the American people Thursday. “Those who believe that the battle in
Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism.”

To pack up and leave now would send the wrong message, Bush said Withdrawal “would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It means risking mass killings on a horrific scale” and would “allow terrorists to establish a safe haven.”

But the president’s “interim” report landed on Capitol Hill with a “thud” as members of Congress assessed his analysis. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Today’s report from the president confirms what many had suspected – the war in Iraq is headed in a dangerous direction. The Iraqi government has not met the key political benchmarks it has set for itself, and Iraqi security forces continue to lag well behind expectations.”

The Congress had set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and the first report only gives the troubled leadership a “satisfactory” grade on eight of them. While the Democrats are not happy with the report’s results, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) requested the report from the White House as part of the last supplemental funding bill.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wasted no time in blasting the administration. “Don’t tell us we’re making progress in Iraq when the last three months have been some of the deadliest since this war began for our brave troops who have sacrificed so much,” he said. “And don’t tell us it’s progress when the Iraqi leadership has done nothing – nothing – to take the political steps necessary to end their civil war.”

It’s clear from the 25-page report that the Iraqi government remains weak, while al-Qaeda is rebuilding and reorganizing in the region. Meanwhile, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he isn’t surprised the terrorist network is rebuilding. He warned that the absence of attacks in the U.S. doesn’t mean we should let our guard down. “We can never rest on our laurels – the enemy is continuing to change and adapt,” he said.

Posted from Capitol Hill by Pamela Gentry

Posted July 10, 2007 – The House Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman John Conyers, (D-Mich.), has been busy.   This week, Conyers put the White House on notice that he’s going to look into why the president decided to commute the sentence of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide, I. “Scooter” Libby. 

Adding to the blue mood in the White House  is the widespread consternation over Bush’s nomination of Mississippi Judge Leslie H. Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which handles cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

I’ve learned that this isn’t sitting too  well with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are planning to work hard to derail this appointment. Southwick, 53, is now teaching at the University of Mississippi Law School but served as a member of the Mississippi Court of Appeals from 1995 to 2006.   A Texas native, he’s also a member of the Mississippi National Guard and used his legal skills while on active duty from 2004 to 2005. 

 So what don’t they like about him?

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, already has written a letter to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying, “[Southwick’s] record, to the extent that he has disclosed it, raises too many questions about his commitment to civil and human rights for him to be entrusted, for life, with such an important position in our judiciary.

They site several decisions of concern, but the Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services,  decision stands out.  Southwick, in a 5-4 ruling, allowed a White state social worker to get his job back after being fired for calling an African-American co-worker “a good ole nigger.”

Southwick reasoned that the statement had been taken out of context, and the slur wasn’t enough to cost someone his job. The Leadership Conference letter quotes the decision, which said the comment wasn’t “motivated out of racial hatred or racial animosity directed toward a particular co-worker or toward Blacks in general.”

Black leaders and members of the Caucus will be making it clear to the president and his nominee that the “N-word” is racial. 

Not too many African-American leaders have raised thier voices in the ongoing immigration debate. Now, a number of  academics, policymakers and scholars are speaking up for citizenship rights for immigrants. Below is a snapshot of what they have to say. Do you agree with them?

Dr. Steven Pitts, an economist with the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California-Berkeley, believes the immigration issue assumes that immigrant workers and Black workers are equal. That’s not true, he says. The assumption is that low-wage immigrant workers reduce job opportunities for African Americans is often not supported by the facts, he adds. “We need to disconnect Black job problems and immigration,” he says.“Not all Black folks are native born and not all immigrants are non black and a lot of times in discussion we suggest that.” 

Alan Jenkins

Alan Jenkins, who heads the Opportunity Agenda,says it would benefit the African-American community to support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship and human rights, because African Americans and immigrants have a shared interest in stepping up civil rights and employment opportunities. Jenkins supports the idea of the two groups demanding fair practices, treatment and wages. “African-American organizations and leadership have pushed our country to fulfill its promise of opportunity for all…, [and] it has meant something, that it was for the Black community, but not only for the Black community, opportunity for all, meaning opportunity for everyone,” he said.“Does immigration help Black folks, or does it hurt Black folks? And in my own view [that’s] the wrong question to ask. The real question is: “How can African Americans [and] immigrants rise together.”

Posted July 5, 2007 – African Americans haven’t been in the forefront of the immigration debate, but well-known Black policymakers have been lobbying lawmakers to make sure those with Black skin aren’t left out of the debate. 

Now after two attempts to get the president’s bill through Congress, “comprehensive” immigration reform is waiting in the wings.  During the debate here’s what African-American policymakers, civil rights activists and researchers had to say about the role of Black’s and immigration policy. Do you agree?

 Wade Henderson

Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, is all for comprehensive immigration reform because he believes immigration is a compelling civil and human rights issue.

 He supports “legalization of the 12 million undocumented immigrants,” believing that the essential issue of the debate is about handling immigration and its specific details.

African Americans have a stake in the future of the United States and as history has shown, with the NAACP, Blacks have “spoken out on behalf of Haitian refugees going back to 1923… regarding the U.S. invasion of Haiti” and “when Cuban refugees were treated differently than Haitian refugees, even though they came under similar circumstances.”

Henderson maintains the central point in the immigration conversation is the question of economic interests – and he maintains that economic questions in the arguments on immigration are devised to create a wedge “between Blacks and Latinos around the issue of immigration requirement.”

Mary Frances Berry

Dr. Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and an endowed professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, says, history has shown that immigration happens and it does not matter if walls are built or other measures are taken away to try to ensure immigrants are kept out. Thus, she says African Americans should try to build coalitions with the immigrant population.
Immigrants aren’t going away, she says, so by uniting with new immigrants, we can get more done for both communities.
“Immigrants are going to keep coming. They are already here, and there are political implications for who they are and what power will be exercised,” Berry says. “We would be foolish not to have coalitions. I mean it would be like cutting your own throat.

Democrats want legalization, not because they love Latinos, but because they think they are going to vote for them.”