Cheney's Bold Iraq Predictions

Politico.com interviewed Cheney about the situation in Iraq in an article today, in which he boldly predicts that Iraq will be self-governing by January 2009. By then, he says, we will have "in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future." Good to see he's still right on line with his reputation for impossible and sometimes wholly false predictions. Congressional Democrats' responses aren't online yet, but I think we can read their minds.

The article also discusses the new White House belief that Iran poses no nuclear threat. Despite confidence in U.S. intelligence, he concedes that "there are things [intelligence officials] don’t know. There’s always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available."

Note that a contributor to the article is John F. Harris of our very own The Way to Win.

Huckabee polls well and Ideas about Romney

I have two unrelated parts to this post. First, as we are probably all aware, Huckabee has polled at first in Rasmussen. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html This is the first national poll where he has come in first. I was wondering how large of an effect polls have traditionally had on voters. It seems that voters are more likely to support a candidate if that candidate is polling well. Huckabee seems especially likely to pick up voters because he is becoming the most fashionable Republican candidate. His decidedly populist demeanor is likely to serve him well among undecided voters. How much does this Rasmussen poll help him with those voters?
Second, I was curious with Romney's speech set for tomorrow about the potential power of the Mormon vote. While at a national level Mormons aren't likely to make a significant impact, could a strong Mormon voter turnout help Romney win the nomination? I am particularly thinking about the Mormon vote in states like Idaho, Arizona, and especially Nevada, where there is a fairly high Mormon population, particularly in the Las Vegas area. There are approxamately 7 million Mormons in the US. Obviously, not all would vote for Romney, but even if 2/3 of them voted for him in the primaries, couldn't that significantly help him win the nomination. Since only about 1.5 million live in Utah, the impact of the remaining supporters could be huge. On a related note, most of those who wouldn't vote for a Mormon are Republican. If Romney were to win the nomination over those votes, would it indicate that he had a strong chance of winning the general election, kind of like what happened with JFK in W. Virginia?
Continuing with Romney, I was wondering if he would have a weak presidency. Considering that he was governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, he must be very willing to compromise and work towards a centrist solution. In addition, his constant flip-flopping on issues shows that he is not terribly dedicated to sticking to the Republican core. In 2002, he earned a reputation for getting people to come together, again demonstrating his tendencies to try and bring people towards a middle ground. Finally, his mission in France would have taught him to reconcille two very different ways of living. So, all of this to me indicates that if elected president, he would try to just work things out, allowing Congress to trample all over him. Hasn't Congress best responded to strong executives?

Will Immigration Become an Issue?

Romney has attacked Giuliani for employing a landscaping company that employs illegal workers. Romney himself fired his own landscaping company last year. Shortly after firing the landscaper, Romney re-contracted the company. He said in a statement on Tuesday, "After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status." The landscaper was fired once again when Romney discovered that the contract had been violated. Romney fired the landscaper for, assumingly, political reasons. But why would he jepordize himself and his political career by hiring the same landscaper? I think this was a poor decision on Romney's part and this may push the issue of immigration back into the spotlight. Immigration has remained out of the public eye, for the most part, since President Bush's Immigration Reform Act was defeated in the Senate in 2006. This may be an issue to watch in the coming months since immigration caused national tension back in 2006. click here for article.

Military Tribunals

What the heck are these review tribunals? According to the New York Times they constitute "panels of military officers who review the initial determination that an individual detainee has been properly labeled an enemy combatant." Opponents to this system say the tribunals limit access to evidence and witnesses and forbid defense lawyers from participating in hearings. Waxman, a lawyer for six Algerian detainees, asserts the current procedure fails to offer "even the most elemental aspects of an independent adversarial proceeding."

So here are my questions: 1. Are there any checks on these tribunals outside of the military? What about outside the executive branch 2. Are there any alternatives to using the federal court system as a checking device on these tribunals? 3. Who made up these tribunal rules? Is this common protocol? How often do these review tribunals actual acquit people? 4. Has the military not used tribunals before the War on Terror?