Following a month-long summer recess, members of the U.S. House and Senate worked for less than three weeks before adjourning in late September until after the general election. Congress will hold only “pro-forma” sessions for the next month, presumably to prevent President Barack Obama from making recess appointments.

Follow me after the jump for a review of how the Iowans voted (or did not vote) on the most significant legislation that came up during the past few weeks.  

This thread is for any comments related to this week’s assassination of Christopher Stephens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and the violent protests at the U.S. embassy in Egypt. Here’s a timeline of events and statements from various officials and politicians. The diplomatic community is mourning Stephens, who became the eighth U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1950. There were some pro-American and anti-terrorism rallies in Libya on September 12. The U.S. has warships en route to Libya and is tightening security at embassies around the world.

Yesterday several commentators lambasted Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for bungling his “3 a.m. phone call” moment. While events were unfolding in the Middle East, Romney criticized the Obama administration’s handling of the incidents. As Matt Vasilogambros reported here, the facts do not support Romney’s claim that the president’s “first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” President Barack Obama told CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that.”

President Barack Obama just finished officially accepting the Democratic nomination for president. Normally I am not a fan of his speaking style, but that was one of his best performances in my opinion–better than the celebrated “Yes We Can.” Given how well Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton did earlier this week, I will be surprised if Obama doesn’t get a bump out of this convention. However, I don’t know what the television ratings have been like this week. Far fewer people watched this year’s Republican convention than in 2008.

Any comments about the presidential election are welcome in this thread. I’ll update the post later with more links related to the Iowa delegation and other speeches in the convention hall today. UPDATE: Links and clips are now after the jump.

President Barack Obama’s campaign launched a new television commercial today in nine swing states, including Iowa. The 60-second spot and annotated transcript are after the jump. This commercial focuses on how the president dealt with the challenges facing him when he took office. Unlike the Obama campaign’s last tv ad, this one does not mention his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.

President Barack Obama outlined plans to “complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan” in a televised speech last night from Kabul. After signing an agreement with President Hamid Karzai, Obama said 23,000 U.S. troops will come home from the war zone by the end of this summer, and withdrawal will be complete by the end of 2014. Beyond that date, he promised, U.S. troops will have only “narrow security missions” in Afghanistan, “But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains.”  

For obvious security reasons, Obama hadn’t announced ahead of time his plans to visit Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

I’ve posted the full text of Obama’s remarks after the jump, along with reaction from Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02). I will update this post later as other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation respond to the president’s speech. Last year Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) advocated bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan more quickly than currently scheduled.

UPDATE: Added comments below from Braley and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Both are concerned about our Afghanistan policy, but from very different perspectives.

Jon Huntsman’s exit from the presidential race leaves five Republican candidates taking the stage tonight for a Fox News debate, co-sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and the South Carolina GOP.

I will update this post later with highlights. I don’t expect Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum to do any real damage to Mitt Romney. Any comments about this debate or the GOP primary campaign are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: I missed part of the debate, but some thoughts are after the jump.

Seven Republican candidates take the stage tonight as Fox News and the Iowa GOP co-host a presidential debate in Sioux City. I’ll be live-blogging after the jump, where I’ve also posted some recent news about the race in Iowa.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the live-blog.

President Barack Obama announced yesterday that the last remaining U.S. troops in Iraq will leave that country by the end of 2011. All the Iowa Democrats in Congress welcomed the news and commended war veterans for their service. Senator Tom Harkin expressed regret only that the end to this “misguided” war “did not come sooner.” Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) similarly described the war’s end as “long overdue.” Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) pledged to “closely monitor the safety of our troops” as they leave Iraq. Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) called for working “towards this end in Afghanistan as soon as possible.”

After the jump I’ve posted the president’s comments on the troop withdrawal as well as the full statements from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. I will update this post if I see comments from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) or Representative Steve King (IA-05).

Libyan forces captured and killed Colonel Moammar Gadhafi today in the former dictator’s hometown of Sirte. Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) welcomed news of the “victory for freedom-loving people” but added that “With Gadhafi out of the picture, it’s time for US involvement in Libya to end.” Braley has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s open-ended intervention in Libya. He has voted against authorizing military action there and repeatedly demanded a cost accounting of our mission.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) reacted to today’s news with a statement calling on “international organizations to step forward and help the Libyan people” so that the U.S. can “focus on creating jobs here at home.” Loebsack sits on the House Armed Services Committee but has generally avoided commenting on the U.S. mission in Libya. In June, he voted against authorizing the intervention but also against defunding it.

The full statements from Braley and Loebsack are after the jump. I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on today’s events. UPDATE: Added reaction from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) and Steve King (R, IA-05). King and Boswell supported authorizing the Libya intervention. King was one of only five House members to vote against barring federal funding for U.S. ground troops in Libya.

SECOND UPDATE: Comments from Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Senator Chuck Grassley are below.

Eight Republican presidential candidates will debate for the second time in less than a week tonight at 7 pm central time. I expect former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Ron Paul to have a go at Texas Governor Rick Perry, like they did during last week’s debate. Representative Michele Bachmann has been trying to distinguish herself from Perry too lately. I see the other four candidates mainly fighting not to be ignored by the moderators.

I’ll update this post later, but meanwhile here’s a thread to talk about the debate or the presidential race in general.

UPDATE: First thoughts on the debate and excerpts from the transcript are after the jump.

President Barack Obama declared Monday that the regime of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi “is coming to an end” in Libya. Both rebel forces and Gadhafi loyalists claim to control most of Tripoli, the Libyan capital, but the rebels have made substantial gains during the past week. For the past five months, the U.S. has supported the Libyan rebels as part of a NATO military intervention. Obama said his team is “in close contact with NATO as well as the United Nations” to plan next steps in Libya.

The full text of the president’s statement is after the jump. I will update this post if I see any Iowa political reaction to the latest developments. Iowa’s Congressional delegation split on U.S. House votes regarding our military intervention in Libya and potential funding for ground troops there. Among Iowa elected officials, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) has been the only consistent critic of the policy.

Any comments about U.S. policy toward Libya are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: This is a good summary of what happened in Libya during the past six months.

U.S. House members lack consensus on the three-month-old military intervention in Libya, and so do Iowa’s five representatives to that body, judging from two votes taken on June 24. Details on the failed attempts to either authorize or defund our mission in Libya are after the jump.

Among Iowa’s Congressional delegation, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) continues to be the only consistent voice against President Barack Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Since shortly after the U.S. joined NATO air strikes against Libyan targets, Braley has demanded a full cost accounting of our country’s third major military conflict, as well as details on an exit strategy. When the U.S. House considered two Libya resolutions on June 3, all five Iowan representatives voted for a toothless option criticizing the administration’s actions. However, only Braley voted for a stronger resolution that would have required the U.S. to withdraw from NATO operations in Libya within 15 days.

After the votes, Braley criticized the White House for giving “nothing but vague explanations” about our Libya intervention. Meanwhile, Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) made no public statement on Friday’s House votes, in keeping with their reluctance to comment on Libya during the past two months. In a June 3 press release, Representative Steve King called on Obama to give Americans more “answers” about the intervention. King’s votes and public statements about Libya don’t make clear where he stands on this conflict, though, or on the president’s power to conduct war without Congressional consent.

Details on the Libya resolutions are after the jump, along with some analysis of recent comments from Braley and King.

Senator Tom Harkin raised an important question yesterday when speaking to Ed Tibbetts of the Quad-City Times:

Harkin said he’s previously called for an immediate exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are scheduled to leave in 2014.

“I think that timeline should be moved up,” he said in an interview. “I mean why are we in Afghanistan now? I thought we were in Afghanistan at the beginning to find Osama bin Laden. OK, that’s over with. Now, why are we in Afghanistan? Are we there to build a modern, 21st-century democracy?”

Senator Chuck Grassley told Tibbetts that he doesn’t seek any change in the U.S. approach to battling terrorists:

Grassley said bin Laden hasn’t been al-Qaida’s operational leader for years, just its inspirational head.

“The threat for terrorist activity is as great as ever,” he said. “It’s a setback for al-Qaida, without a doubt, but probably a temporary setback.”

I suspect Grassley is closer to the truth than White House chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who on Monday compared the terrorist group to a “mortally wounded tiger”:

“We are hoping to bury the rest of al-Qaeda along with bin Laden,” Brennan told reporters.

“This is a strategic blow to al-Qaeda. It is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, blow to lead to its demise. But we are determined to destroy it.”

I don’t see how the massive U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (more than 100,000 troops) will further this goal when Al Qaeda operatives are working in many countries.

Escalating military operations in Afghanistan has cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars as well as many lives. I still believe it will eventually be viewed as one of President Barack Obama’s biggest mistakes. Members of Congress should insist on answers to Harkin’s questions. If past experience is any guide, though, Obama will keep getting blank checks to fund war.

President Barack Obama announced minutes ago that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda movement, is dead following a “targeted” U.S. operation in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Speaking on national television late Sunday night, Obama said that shortly after taking office, he had instructed the CIA to make capturing Bin Laden a top priority. He was briefed on a possible lead to Bin Laden last August, and last week he decided that the U.S. had “enough intelligence to take action.” Today Obama authorized a “targeted operation,” in which Bin Laden was killed in a firefight. The U.S. has custody of his body, according to the president, and there were no American casualties. Obama emphasized that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, saying Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader and was a “mass murderer” of Muslims. Obama credited Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts with helping locate Bin Laden and said he had contacted Pakistani leaders, who agreed that the death of Bin Laden is good for both countries.

I will update this post as more news and Iowa reaction become available. Official statements from Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Bruce Braley (IA-01) are after the jump. Former President George W. Bush issued a statement congratulating Obama and the members of the U.S. intelligence community who made today’s events possible.

Meanwhile, use this thread to discuss the political implications of Bin Laden’s death. Al Qaeda isn’t going to disappear overnight, nor is the U.S. likely to end its military presence in Afghanistan sooner. I don’t know enough about U.S.-Pakistani relations to have a sense of the likely impact.

The UK newspaper Daily Mail published an article yesterday on how Bin Laden escaped elite British and American troops near Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001.

Comments about other U.S. military interventions are also welcome in this thread. Yesterday in Tripoli, a NATO air strike killed the youngest son and three grandchildren of Col. Moammar Qaddafi. The Libyan leader and his wife were reportedly not harmed. Some GOP senators have said regime change should become the explicit U.S. policy goal in Libya.

UPDATE: Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement congratulating “our intelligence community, our military and the president.”

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) via Twitter: “On this night of historic news may God bless the victims of 9/11 and may God continue to bless the United States and freedom’s cause.” Kind of a strange tweet from Senator Chuck Grassley: “Pres bush was right when he said there aren’t enuf caves for Osama bin Laden to hide. That we wld get him. We got him”

THIRD UPDATE: The State Department has issued a worldwide travel alert for American citizens due “to the enhanced potential for anti-American violence given counterterrorism activity in Pakistan.”

FOURTH UPDATE: An administration official briefing journalists after Obama’s speech said the U.S. did not inform Pakistani authorities about this mission in advance. Official says four people were killed in raid in addition to Bin Laden: one of Bin Laden’s sons, two other male associates and a woman who allegedly was being used as a shield. The large compound where Bin Laden was found was reportedly built about five years ago, but U.S. officials do not know how long Bin Laden had been living there.

FIFTH UPDATE: Added Representative Dave Loebsack’s (IA-02) statement after the jump.

MONDAY UPDATE: The large compound where Bin Laden was reportedly killed is very close to a Pakistani military academy, raising “suspicions that Pakistan has played a double game, and perhaps even knowingly harbored the Qaeda leader.”

U.S. officials said they buried Bin Laden at sea last night in accordance with Islamic law, after flying his body to Afghanistan to confirm his identity. Burial at sea will prevent any gravesite from becoming a shrine for the Al Qaeda leader’s followers, but the quick disposal of the body may prompt questions about whether he is really dead.

Marc Ambinder reports on “The Secret Team That Killed bin Laden.”

After the jump I’ve added Latham’s full statement, comments from Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds and a interesting stream of comments from an Abbottabad resident who started tweeting after hearing a helicopter at 1 am Sunday (“a rare event”). Still no statements released by Senators Tom Harkin or Chuck Grassley or Representative Steve King (IA-05).

FINAL UPDATE: I never did find a press release from Steve King regarding Bin Laden’s reported death, but he seems to have given most of the credit to U.S. policies sanctioning torture of terror suspects. On May 2, King posted these two Twitter updates:

Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?

ObL “Sealed” into eternal damnation. Intel from KSM in Gitmo:-) “It feels like the entire country won the World Series,” Bill Hemmer-FOX.

I don’t know why King would be quick to assume torture led to Bin Laden’s capture. Interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t stop the trail for Bin Laden from growing cold. If this New York Times article “Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden” is accurate, Pakistani agents working for the CIA produced the key lead in the search for the Al Qaeda leader last summer.

President Barack Obama addressed the nation tonight regarding our nine-day-old military intervention in Libya. He explained why the U.S. and its allies in the United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and why it was not in “our national interest” to let Colonel Moammar Gaddafi continue killing his country’s people. Obama emphasized that “in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.” It took the international community more than a year to settle on a similar sequence of actions to curtail violence in Bosnia during the 1990s.  

Obama promised to work with allies to assist the people of Libya and support a political transition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to London tomorrow to “meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. ”

Obama also made clear that the U.S. will not try to “overthrow Gaddafi by force” with troops on the ground, because we cannot afford to repeat our experience in Iraq:

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. […]

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

The full text of Obama’s remarks, as prepared, are at the end of this post.

Reacting to the president’s speech, Senator Chuck Grassley said he “was an early advocate of a no-fly zone,” which has helped the Libyan opposition make progress “despite the President’s delay in offering this help [….].” Grassley added that Obama hasn’t made clear how long our mission in Libya will last, and said Congress should discuss our commitment there.

Senator Tom Harkin said that given Gaddafi’s “humanitarian atrocities, I was supportive of the initial UN-backed military strikes.  But with the U.S. ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have concerns about an open-ended engagement in Libya.” He added, “while there is merit in handing over operations to NATO, ultimately, a political solution is needed to end the conflict in Libya.”

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released a statement expressing concern “that tonight we didn’t get a clear and accurate accounting from the President on how much this conflict in Libya is going to cost American taxpayers. We’ve got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and Americans deserve to hear from our President what this third conflict is going to cost us. I look forward to meeting with Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton later this week and hearing their explanation of the costs of this operation and their strategy for moving forward in Libya.” Last week Braley asked Obama to provide a full cost accounting for our latest military mission. He was the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on our new involvement in Libya.

The complete statements from Grassley, Harkin and Braley are after the jump. I will update this post later if Iowa’s other members of Congress comment on the president’s speech.

UPDATE: After returning from a weekend trip to Afghanistan, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) spoke to reporters on March 28 (before Obama’s speech):

Noting the U.S. still has troops in Iraq, Loebsack said involvement in Libya raises concerns about overextending the military.

However, he said, Petraeus told the congressman he doesn’t expect enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya “to have any major effect on what we’re doing in Afghanistan.”

“Our troops (in Afghanistan) are doing their mission,” he said. “They have the resources they need to do their mission. That’s critical.”

As of March 29, I still have not seen any reaction to Obama’s speech from Loebsack or Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve KIng (IA-05).

SECOND UPDATE: Further comments from Loebsack, Boswell and Latham are now below.

The U.S. Senate ratified the START arms control treaty today by a 71 to 26 vote. Thirteen Republicans joined all 58 members of the Democratic caucus to ratify the treaty, which needed support from two-thirds of the senators present to pass. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley voted no, as did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and most of the Republican caucus. According to Major Garrett, no Senate minority leader has ever before opposed a major treaty that the chamber ratified.

Grassley said he voted against ratifying START “because it makes the United States give up more than Russia, it’s silent on the major issue of tactical nuclear weapons, and the verification mechanism is weaker than START I, which I supported in 1992.” I’ve posted his full statement on the treaty after the jump. Every former secretary of state alive, plus various Reagan administration officials, agreed that approving the treaty is in U.S. security interests. Tom Harkin’s statement, which is also posted below, hailed the treaty’s ratification, adding, “The fact that it was subjected to months of obstruction and delay underlines the dysfunction that has taken hold in the U.S. Senate.”

Also today, senators passed by unanimous consent a bill on health care for 9/11 responders. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, backed by his GOP colleagues, had been holding up that bill for some time. Senators from both parties worked out a compromise on the bill, reducing its cost and sunsetting the Victims Compensation Fund, among other things. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will approve this bill later today, before Congress adjourns for Christmas.

Earlier today, President Barack Obama signed the bill that will lead to repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. However, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network cautioned, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will still be the law until 60 days after the Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify repeal can happen.” The SLDN’s full warning to service members is here. Bottom line: “Do NOT come out. At this time, lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members can still be investigated and discharged under DADT.”

Chris Geidner analyzed the Senate numbers on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and found that just two current senators (Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer) voted “against DADT at every stage in its history.” Grassley was one of five current senators who voted to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on December 18 and also voted for the 1993 defense authorization bill enacting the policy. Tom Harkin was among 18 current members of the Democratic caucus who voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell despite having voted for the 1993 defense authorization. Caveat: Harkin and most of that group had previously voted for a Boxer amendment to strip Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from that 1993 bill.

In other Congressional news, momentum is building for some kind of filibuster reform when the new Senate convenes in January, but it sounds as if the changes will not reduce the number of senators needed to overcome a filibuster (60).

The U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution today to fund the federal government at current levels through March 4, 2011. Both the cloture motion and the bill itself passed by large bipartisan majorities; Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley voted for the cloture motion and the funding resolution. Harkin slammed Republicans for blocking the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill last week, because unlike the continuing resolution approved today, the omnibus bill would have increased funding for programs such as Head Start, child care subsidies, meals for seniors and drugs for AIDS patients. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the continuing resolution later today to stop the government from running out of money at midnight. UPDATE: The House approved the spending bill by 193 to 165, with 75 representatives not voting. All five Iowans voted, and they split along party lines.

A bigger problem will come in March, when House Republicans force through major cuts in domestic spending (probably with the eager cooperation of President Barack Obama). Those will be a drag on the economy, erasing any stimulative effect from the lousy deal Obama struck on extending the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the House gave final approval to the food safety bill today on a mostly party-line vote of 215 to 144. Iowa’s representatives split the usual way, with Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voting for the bill and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voting against it. I am still surprised that the Senate resurrected the food safety bill on Sunday. I have yet to see any explanation for why Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to let it pass. Coburn had been that bill’s most vocal opponent in the Senate all year. It’s not as if Coburn suddenly decided to stop being a jerk; he appears ready to block the 9/11 responders bill from becoming law during the lame-duck session. Even some Fox News commentators are upset about that political maneuver.

The Senate took a step toward ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) today. Eleven Republicans joined all Democrats present to approve a cloture motion on that treaty, which the U.S. and Russia signed in April. Grassley voted with most of his GOP colleagues against the cloture motion on START; he has voted for various Republican amendments offered to the treaty. I haven’t seen any statement from his office explaining his opposition. The last START expired in December 2009, and we need to ratify the new treaty in order to resume inspecting Russian nuclear bases. There could hardly be a more important national security issue. Ronald Reagan’s former chief arms control negotiator said last month that Iran and North Korea were the “only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified.”

I don’t write much about foreign policy here, but earlier this week President Barack Obama lifted some travel restrictions to Cuba, and Congressman Leonard Boswell devoted his weekly e-mail blast to making the case for normalizing trade with Cuba:

Since Iowa’s economy is so strongly impacted by trade, I have been a supporter of opening-up the U.S. relationship with Cuba by lifting restrictions imposed in the 1960’s.

I believe the Obama Administration has begun to move in the right direction by lifting travel and spending restrictions on Americans with family in Cuba.  The Administration is also lifting the ban on U.S. telecommunications companies reaching out to the island. This move will flood Cuba with the information its people have been denied for so many years and provide new opportunities for businesses.

While I commend these latest actions, I believe we must make bolder changes.  Normalizing trade relations with Cuba would expand export markets while benefiting our American famers and ranchers.

Because of my support for lifting trade restrictions with Cuba, I have cosponsored H.R. 1531, the Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act, as well as H.R. 1737, the Agricultural Export Facilitation Act.  Both pieces of legislation would end the current trade embargo, which does not permit U.S. agricultural products from being exported to Cuba, among other things.

I believe we must maintain two-way trade relationships with foreign nations.  The U.S. can produce and ship products to Cuba more cheaply and efficiently than many countries Cuba imports from today.

The U.S. is on the right path toward improving relations with Cuba, and I am hopeful this relationship will continue to grow.

I am with Boswell on this, and not only because increased trade with Cuba would create a new export market for Iowa products. It’s ludicrous that the U.S. has continued to impose such restrictions on trade with Cuba nearly two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. Meanwhile, Communist China is a greater threat to our long-term security, yet we give them most favored nation trade status. It’s very hard to avoid buying goods made in China (and believe me, I try).

This thread is for any comments about U.S. relations with Cuba.  

Otherwise she would not be able to make a fool of herself like this on national television:

It’s incredible that so few Republicans have called her out for being totally unprepared and unqualified.

Josh Marshall has the punch line: as governor, Palin hasn’t shown much interest in ties with Russia, according to the Seattle Times.

Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea.

Yet under Palin, the state government – without consultation – reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group’s executive director. That forced the forum’s Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

Palin – unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles – also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum’s annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia’s oil territory.

“It was an opportunity for the Alaska governor to take a delegation of business leaders to the largest oil-producing region in Russia, and she would have been shaking hands with major leaders in Russia,” Wohl said.

UPDATE: Rumor is that CBS has even more devastating footage they have not released yet.

The McCain campaign is said to be very worried about the VP debate, since practice sessions have been “disastrous.”

Palin has now lost conservative columnist Kathleen Parker:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

For more reviews of Palin’s interview with Couric, click here.  

I’m not watching live, but apparently the Nation of Service forum, featuring John McCain and then Barack Obama, is on PBS and the cable networks now.

Daily Kos has a liveblog here.

Anyone feeling safer now that Sarah Palin told ABC’s Charlie Gibson that war with Russia may be necessary if Russia invades a country?

Josh Marshall captured this “awkward moment” when it’s obvious Palin has no idea what Gibson means by the “Bush doctrine.”

Count on the Republicans to cry “elitism” if Democrats suggest that the vice-presidential nominee should know something about foreign policy.

Tom Harkin has right-wing bloggers in a tizzy because he recently suggested that the military tradition in McCain’s family has given him a dangerously imbalanced worldview:

“I think one of the problems that John McCain has is that his grandfather was an admiral, his father was an admiral,” Harkin said on a conference call with Iowa Independent and other media. “He comes from a long line of just military people. I think his whole world view, his life view, has been shaped from a military viewpoint and he has a hard time of thinking beyond that. And I think he’s trapped in that, so everything is looked at sort of from his life experiences as always having been in the military and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

I see what Harkin is getting at–McCain’s background makes him unlikely to get us out of Iraq and perhaps more likely to get us involved in other wars. Still, I don’t think this is good messaging against McCain. Americans are not going to reject his candidacy because he comes from too military of a family.

Harkin was on more solid ground when he talked about McCain’s “scary” temper. McCain has a long history of losing it that suggests he lacks the temperament to be president. This is a huge mark in Barack Obama’s favor, because Obama is much more even-tempered.

But for those who are tired of talking about McCain’s anger management problem, I offer ten more reasons not to support the GOP nominee:

1. Mr. Straight Talk can’t keep his story straight when it comes to Iraq, the economy, tax cuts or other issues. Brave New Films shows you the evidence in “The Real McCain 2”:

2. McCain has employed senior campaign workers with a history of lobbying for foreign corporations or brutal foreign regimes. In fact, the man McCain chose to run this summer’s Republican National Convention is a lobbyist whose firm represented the Burmese junta.

McCain’s campaign has fired at least six employees this month because of their lobbying ties, including his national finance co-chairman Tom Loeffler, whose firm collected millions from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

Even so, McCain is still employing Senior Political Adviser Charlie Black, who has lobbied for:

   * Ahmed Chalabi, the smooth talking Iraqi exile who helped manufacture the WMD charges against Saddam Hussien that led the U.S. to invade.

   * Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, found guilty of torture, executions, disappearances, and human rights violations, who hired Black to “improve” his image in the U.S.

   * Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, who’s army massacred between 40,000 and 50,000 civilians in two years.

   * Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who amassed a vast personal fortune and repressed rival political parties while his country’s children starved.

   * Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, an ally of apartheid-era South Africa, who started a civil war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and ordered the torture and murder of countless opponents.

   * Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida ran a one-party regime, who arrested his opponents, and murdered journalists.

3. McCain has only released two years of his own tax returns and none of his wife Cindy’s tax returns, despite a growing consensus that the public has a right to know about McCain’s personal finances.

Why should you care? Because in the past Cindy McCain had business dealings with a crook whom Senator McCain helped bail out. We need to know if similar conflicts of interest exist today.

4. McCain’s campaign has underpaid for the use of his wife’s corporate jet, even though the self-styled campaign finance reformer has backed legislation that would require candidates to pay the real costs of using corporate jets.

Even after his hypocrisy on this issue was exposed, McCain continues to use his wife’s corporate jet for campaign purposes.

5. McCain’s foreign policy in in all meaningful ways the same as George Bush’s.

6. McCain is running for president on his “vast experience,” but he keeps confusing Sunnis with Shiites, even after being corrected by his buddy Joe Lieberman.

7. McCain says a lot of the problems in the U.S. economy are just “psychological.”

8. McCain’s judicial appointments would likely be the same kind of extreme conservatives George Bush has favored:

The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.

9. McCain’s campaign has been bashing Obama for supposedly being willing to negotiate with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, but McCain said two years ago that the U.S. would have to engage Hamas if that group were running the Palestinian government.

10. McCain’s campaign blog misleadingly portrays the GOP candidate as a progressive, even though his voting record and stands on the issues are hard-line conservative.

For more on McCain’s record, see the Democratic National Committee’s new clearinghouse for research about him and MoveOn.org’s list of Ten Things You Should Know about John McCain.

By the way, McCain’s continuing problem with fundraising suggests that a lot of Republicans have their own reasons for not supporting the GOP nominee.

It’s incredible to think that even after a campaign that dragged on for months longer than the Republican nominating battle, the Democratic nominee is likely to have a financial edge over McCain this fall.

Feel free to post comments about other reasons not to support McCain that I’ve left out.

Barack Obama will be discussing foreign policy with four of his foreign policy advisors tomorrow at the Holiday Inn Conference Center at the Des Moines airport.

 http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/officialevent/4vlcm

This should be a good opportunity for him to separate further from the Hillary camp on foreign policy issues and articulate why he has the political and life experience necessary to be the next President of the United States.

I may be posting in my diary from this event.  It depends if I can get a ride into Des Moines, otherwise I will just comment on what I read about it. 

Today, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson's speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.”

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”

This diary is part of the candidate series for Bill Richardson on MyDD.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Senator Dodd will hold a press conference to announce his comprehensive Cuba policy today in Miami, FL at 11 AM Eastern. Dodd, who has led the fight to reform our approach to Cuba to better serve the cause of democracy and American interests, will call for bold, sweeping changes to America's Cuba policy.

I will update this diary with links to the full plan, but for now check out the preview offered by the Miami Herald today:

In a statement given Friday to The Miami Herald, Dodd favors opening a U.S. embassy in Havana, allowing Americans to do business there, and nixing TV Martí, the U.S.-funded broadcast routinely blocked by Cuba.

''I believe the time has come to say publicly what many Americans believe — our Cuba policy has neither served America's interests nor brought democracy to Cuba,'' reads the speech Dodd plans to give in Miami today. “It has only served to strengthen the current regime. It has been an abject failure.''

Chris Dodd has the boldness to open new doors in our relationship with Cuba. This plan is yet another example of Dodd leading with conviction, experience, and clarity of vision.

UPDATE:

The video of the press conference is embedded above. Dodd was very strong, fluidly answering questions on his Cuba policy in both English and Spanish.

The full Dodd Cuba policy is now online. Read it here.

Over at Iowa Independent Dien Judge reports that “We haven't seen the end of the Clinton-Obama diplomacy feud.”

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Monroe County (southeast Iowa) got a phone call from PSA Interviewing, which conducted a message-testing poll for Clinton in Iowa earlier this year.

Most of the poll questions were about Hillary, and they concerned both policy matters and electability. The survey specifically asked about the CNN/You Tube debate question about whether the president should meet with foreign dictators, and under what conditions.

There's been a lot of debate in the blogosphere over who was helped by this dispute. If Clinton tries to keep this story alive in her speeches and/or campaign ads, it's a safe bet that her internal Iowa polling showed it was a winner for her. If she doesn't bring it up much in the future, we can assume that the polling showed most Iowans agreed with Obama.