Search Results for: ’

During my recent trip to Cannon Beach, my cousin and I stopped in Aberdeen. We walked around a few blocks, went to Safeway for some supplies, returned to our car and headed south. We spent perhaps an hour and a half in Aberdeen. Here’s a little of what I wrote:

Aberdeen is depressing. Now I know why Kurt Cobain got the hell out of there. But seriously, Aberdeen is in rough shape. I’m told its always been a rundown kind of place, but Jesus! Huge parts of its downtown are deserted and empty. Cheap furniture stores are aplenty. The electrical infrastructure looks about 50 years old. The people I met were very nice and down home, but Aberdeen needs some serious work.

I don’t think I was clear about what I really meant. I had not been to SW Washington since the way-back days, so I wanted to make sure I visited. It was sad to see Aberdeen’s downtown rundown and somewhat empty. I grew up in a small town, a small town that blew up into a city. Sometimes I have to remember that this doesn’t happen everywhere.

Aberdeen City Councilman Paul Fritts left a comment in the last post, so I’ll let him have the last word.

What is it with those from Seattle, etc that they take great delight and seem to have a need to slam Aberdeen and every smaller town in Washington?

[…]

Yes, Aberdeen like many areas that has suffered as it has forges through a variety of problems. Unemployment, drug use, suicide, etc. But Aberdeen is and always will be resilient. Over the years it has taken blow after blow yet it continues to survive. Perhaps if the author would have gotten off of his ass and actually done some research he would have found out that Aberdeen is actively courting various businesses to locate here. Most are interested. Some are here. In the downtown area that the author slams two theaters are in the midst of renovation and re-opening within a year or two thanks to John Yonich an Aberdeen native and Bellevue businessman.

His other project along with another developer is the Morck Hotel which was a grand hotel in it’s day.

Currently plans for that entire downtown area have been developed and some work on the buildings started.

The city of Aberdeen’s Community Development Director works her rear off in dealing with various business/industries which want to locate here.

We are working hard to improve our area yet you feel the need to slam it instead of gathering the facts. Good thing you are a blogger instead of a reporter.

Funny thing too, we are all classified as hicks, backward, redneck, flag waiving, conservative scum down here by all of you in Pugetropolis, yet, in the last presidential election only three or four counties/cities voted a straight democratic ticket. Grays Harbor County, which includes Aberdeen, was one of those counties. Only one Republican has held an office in Grays Harbor in 50+ years and that was Rep. Jim Buck whose area covered only a section of Grays Harbor (not including Aberdeen) and most all of Jefferson and Clallam counties. Yep we certainly are a “red” area.

Finally as far as the Kurt Cobain comment perhaps you should go to www.kurtcobainmemorial.org and check the FAQ’s to find out what he really thought and the context of it not just what was said to some magazine.

[…]

Hope this is something all of you will think about the next time you are traveling and feel the need to judge a town through a windshield.

Paul Fritts
Aberdeen City Council

The State of Washington needs some pot advice. Specifically, how much marijuana constitutes a 60 day stash for medical use?

Washington’s current law, passed as a voter initiative in 1998, says folks with certain medical conditions may use marijuana to relieve pain and other problems, if their physicians approve.

A problem is that the law says patients may have a 60-day supply of marijuana, but it doesn’t define how much that would be, according to a bulletin from the Washington State Department of Health.
[…]

To define the 60-day supply and create the report, health officials are to consider research, the advice of experts, the best practices of other states and input from the public.

Here is how you can contribute:

• Come to one of our four public workshops to be held around the state in mid-September (watch the website for more details).
• E-mail us at MedicalMarijuana@doh.wa.gov
• Post your comment…. [on the web site]
• Send your comments to:
  Department of Health
  PO Box 47866
  Olympia, WA 98504-7866
• Fax your comments to (360) 236-4768

But if you do offer your expert opinion, exercise a little discretion in what you reveal about yourself. After all, the federal government still considers it a heinous crime to possess or use pot…even for medical use. It is not clear that the Washington law provides any protection from federal prosecution whatsoever.

Do I sound paranoid? If so, it isn’t for the reason you think (not a user—never have been). The feds have not backed down on prosecution for production or use of marijuana for medical use. Most recently, concerns about federal prosecution of New Mexico state employees is slowing down implementation of that state’s medical marijuana laws:

Gov. Bill Richardson ordered the state Health Department on Friday to resume planning of a medical marijuana program despite the agency’s worries about possible federal prosecution.

However, the governor stopped short of committing to implement a state-licensed production and distribution system for the drug if the potential for federal prosecution remains unchanged.

The department announced earlier this week that it would not implement the law’s provisions for the agency to oversee the production and distribution of marijuana to eligible patients. That decision came after Attorney General Gary King warned that the department and its employees could face federal prosecution for implementing the law, which took effect in July.

So just keep in mind…your emails, faxes and such sent to the State will likely be available as public records….

More information about Washington’s medical marijuana law is available at here.

Update: Lee points out: It’s important to note that the only Democratic candidate who has not publicly stated that he/she will stop using the federal government to interfere with the state medical marijuana laws is Obama. He’s allegedly said it privately to people, but is not on the public record yet.

The bottom line is that if you want to stop the federal government from interfering with our laws, vote for the Democrats (or Ron Paul).

As Will mentioned below, Hempfest is this weekend. I’m sure most of you have noticed how much importance I place on the issue of drug policy, and as you’d expect, I’ll be spending much of the weekend down in Myrtle Edwards Park in the hemposium tent listening to speakers. I’m often told that by trying very openly and aggressively to bring about an end to drug prohibition, I’m fighting what will always be a losing battle. I very strongly disagree with that. At some point, it will simply become fiscally impossible for this country to sustain its massive prison system and its constantly growing international anti-drug expenditures and we will be forced to move in the other direction. I think it’s vital that we start to envision what the correct regulatory mechanisms should look like when that time comes.

It’s somewhat disheartening to remember that we could only end alcohol prohibition after the Great Depression actually hit and pragmatic public policy was the only way forward. Hopefully, the battle can be won before we hit some kind of financial armageddon. What makes me optimistic is that the numbers of those speaking up about the damage being done by the drug war is growing – and coming from more and more unexpected places. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an organization, founded in 2002, of current and former law enforcement officials that now has over 5000 members, including former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper. The King County Bar Association commissioned a Drug Policy Project, led by now-State Representative Roger Goodman, that produced a well-researched report calling for an end to drug prohibition and a transition to having government regulate and control currently illegal drugs, instead of simply handing their distribution to criminal gangs who bring violence to our cities to protect their profits. Countries like Switzerland, Portugal, Australia, Canada, Holland, and even Russia, have taken steps to decriminalize drug use.

Recently, the UK drug law reform organization Transform released an impressive document for drug law reformers called Tools for the Debate. It’s like a play book for anyone who wants to be successful in breaking down the rhetoric and the propaganda that has kept this massively unsuccessful public policy afloat for so long. One of the major stumbling blocks to getting the message out is described here in the report:

In this political arena a virulent disease known as ‘Green Room Syndrome’ is epidemic, where strongly held beliefs on reform disappear as soon as the record button is pressed for broadcast. This is something we have experienced again and again: fellow-debaters who privately admit to agreeing with us in the Green Room before a media interview, only to feign shock and outrage at our position once the cameras and microphones are on. There are many in politics and public life who understand intellectually that the prohibition of drugs is unsustainable, but who default in public to moral grandstanding and emotive appeals to the safety of their children.

(You can see a video of Bill O’Reilly getting caught in this hypocrisy by a 16-year-old high school student who starts reading from O’Reilly’s own book)

There’s more optimism today in this area than there’s been for as long as I’ve followed this issue. All of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls (and Ron Paul) support stopping the federal crackdown on medical marijuana in the states that have made it legal. California has been the epicenter of this battle for years. Having the federal government back off is likely to be the first step towards letting states come up with a more sensible policy dealing with both marijuana and more dangerous illegal drugs. And hell, it might even happen sooner:

August 6 — A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes, makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget.

“It is ridiculous that California can’t pay its bills,” said spokesman Clifford Schaffer. “It is a tragedy that they will cut badly needed services and programs such as medical care for the elderly and prison drug treatment when the money to fund all these programs and more is there and available. Everyone who is currently waiting for a check from the state should be enraged at this foolishness.”

Regulation and taxation of marijuana could produce six billion dollars in additional tax revenue, according to economic studies linked from LetUsPayTaxes.com. In addition, it could save up to ten billion dollars in enforcement costs. “That is a conservative estimate,” said Schaffer. “By other estimates, the revenues could be five times that. The economists are with us all the way on this one. Marijuana prohibition is an economic disaster.”

There’s no shortage of negative stereotypes when it comes to those who flock to Myrtle Edwards Park every year. A generation of Americans has grown up dismissing the movement to reform our drug laws as a fringe cause led by a bunch of idealistic hippies. But when you get past the stoner stereotypes, the larger cause we’ve been fighting for isn’t just right, it’s becoming necessary to start addressing a number of glaring problems in our society today.

Some rich person is throwing a shindig in Gasworks Park, and everyone’s been abuzz over just who it is. Dan Savage decides to check it out:

SIK [Dan’s codename for his friend who worked the posh event. -Will]also told me that, just a few moments before I breached security, a Wallingford resident—one of the with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies “friends” of Gasworks Park—had treated him to a screaming fit. SIK told this “friend” of Gasworks that parks all over the city can be rented for weddings, and the “friend” of Gasworks insisted that his wasn’t the case, that it was theft, that it was a public park and what SIK and his crew were doing was illegal, blah blah BLAH.

Most of the park was open to the public, including a large lawn right next to the spot where the tents were set-up—the perfect spot to watch the fireworks display later that night.

I took my son’s dog for a walk after I got home from my party-crashin’ bike ride… and what do you know? There was a wedding in Volunteer Park the same night. Most of the lawn in front of the Seattle Asian Art Museum was covered by a huge white tent. That lawn not only has the best views of the Space Needle and the reservoir, but it also happens to be my son’s dog’s favorite place to take a shit. I noticed that a couple of other dog walkers—park regulars, always fully clothed—nearby; apparently that lawn is a favorite for lots of neighborhood dogs. The best man was giving a speech about the lucky couple—when they met, when he first realized it was serious, how nervous the groom was the first time he met his future in-laws. The folks with dogs standing outside the tent joined in the applause at the end of the speech, and then strolled off to find other places for their dogs to crap.

No one screamed “theft!,” and no one threatened to sue. Everyone in the neighborhood seemed genuinely happy for the couple. The next day we got our park back, no harm done.

The “Friends of Gasworks Park” are ridiculous ninnies who need to take a Valium with their wine spritzer. Gasworks belongs to everyone, not just the neighbors, and like all Seattle parks, it’s for rent for special events. Always has, always will be.

Darcy Burner won the sole endorsement of the Pierce County Young Democrats this week in her primary race against Rodney Tom for the Democratic nomination in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

“Darcy [Burner] is the right candidate for the 8th District,” said Sam Ross, PCYD Chair. “She’s right on the constitution, she’s right on healthcare, she’s right on the Iraq occupation, she’s a leader on technology and economic innovation. On all the issues that Young Democrats believe in, Darcy will stand with us always, and on all the issues that truly matter, Darcy will do what she knows to be right.”

This early endorsement in a high profile primary is important for a number of reasons. First, the Young Democrats have strong chapters at University of Puget Sound and Pacific Lutheran University, and have promised aggressive recruitment, doorbelling and phonebanking drives at local colleges and universities. Second, it demonstrates the strong appeal Darcy has amongst one of the fast growing segments of the Democratic Party: younger voters.

In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, notes that the share of Republican voters aged 55 and over has increased from 28% in 1997 to 41% today, whereas the share aged 18-34 has fallen from 25% to 17%.

The Democratic Party is getting younger, which not only bodes well for the future, it bodes well for candidates like Burner who appeal to their values. It’s kinda cliche to say it, but our young people are our nation’s future… as are future leaders like Darcy Burner.

Creating the opportunity for a potentially precedent setting decision, the Washington State Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutional “scope” of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 6 at 1:30PM, and a decision would presumably come before ballots go to press for the November election.

Futurewise and SEIU 775 had filed suit in King County Superior Court arguing that I-960 should be blocked from the ballot because it is outside the constitutional scope of the initiative process, and Eyman publicly gloated when the judge refused to act on their request. Hmm. I wonder if Tim’s gloating now?

Courts are reluctant to hear challenges to initiatives prior to the ballot, but the fact that the Supremes have agreed to hear the appeal — and on such an expedited basis — indicates that a number of justices believe the case raises points of law that at least merit consideration. Such scope challenges are not without precedent, the most recent being 2003’s Goldstein v. Gregoire, in which a Thurston County Superior Court judge selectively (and unconstitutionally) barred me from submitting petitions for I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass. At the time, my attorney cogently argued:

Many initiatives are presented to the people that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the legislative power. For example, Tim Eyman’s Sound Transit Initiative would prevent Sound Transit from spending money on a “Link Light Rail” system. This proposed initiative is clearly beyond the scope of legislative power under Ruano v. Spellman and other cases holding that initiatives cannot seek to prohibit administrative actions. The Attorney General has done nothing to prevent Mr. Eyman from going forward with his initiative. Proposed Initiative 824 is a statement. The Attorney General has taken the position in the present case that statements are not legislative, yet nothing has been done to prevent Initiative 824 from going forward.

Allowing the Attorney General discretion to select initiatives for challenge based on their palatability would violate the First Amendment. If pre-ballot review is to be applied to some initiatives, it should be applied to all initiatives that are arguably unconstitutional or beyond the scope of legislative power.

I still feel that I-831, written in the form of a valid resolution, was barred improperly. But if Goldstein v. Gregoire is ultimately cited in a ruling that blocks I-960 from the ballot, those will have been lumps well worth taking.

WAPO’s Chris Cillizza reports from Yearly Kos, where longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg had some advice for the assembled progressive bloggers:

Think big. As in, big gains for Democrats in both the House and the Senate in 2008. “Do not think conservatively,” said Greenberg during a panel discussion on the impact of Iraq on polling and the coming election. “The idea of a 50-seat-plus majority is real.”

Greenberg wasn’t the only Democratic strategist predicting huge gains. Tom Mattzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, insisted that a path existed to a 60-seat majority in the Senate after the 2008 election.

Why the rosy predictions?

Because the 2006 election in which Democrats regained majorities in the House and Senate was a “small point along the way,” according to Greenberg, and the data continues to suggest that the political environment is worsening almost daily for Republicans.

In making the case for Rodney Tom, he and his surrogates routinely dismiss Darcy Burner’s ’08 prospects. “She had her run,” state Rep. Chris Hurst smugly told the Seattle P-I, complaining that she “came up short … in what was probably the best year in 40 years to run as a Democrat.” The intended message to Democratic primary voters is two-fold: 1) Burner only did as well as she did because of unusual national trends; and 2) those trends won’t be present in 2008.

Yeah, um, that’s right… Burner went from complete unknown to within inches of victory, simply by riding the Democratic tide. It had absolutely nothing to do with her smart campaign, her relentless hard work, and a force of personality that won over hundreds of passionate grassroots volunteers. I could write dissertations refuting premise number one, but suffice it to say that it is just plain insulting, and I’m not so sure that Tom, Hurst and their buddies would derisively dis Burner like that if she wasn’t, you know, a girl.

But premise number 2 — the heart of the Tom campaign’s critique of Burner — is just flat out refuted by the numbers. Indeed, Greenberg’s polling data suggests a steadily deteriorating political climate for Reichert and his House colleagues:

The Republicans are in trouble – almost as much trouble as they were in 2006. Democrats are not only ahead in the most competitive Republican districts (Tier 1), but they also lead by 3 points in the second tier, less competitive Republican seats, which means there might well be additional Congressional seats at risk beyond the 35. The extent of Republicans’ vulnerabilities suggests that Democrats can take their advantage far into Republican territory in 2008. This pattern that allowed the Democrats to take 30 seats in the last mid-term election could well take Democrats up to 20 in the Presidential, unless confounded by intervening events. There really could be another wave election.

Unlike the Democratic incumbents, Republican members in competitive districts face a range of trends that are working against them, reflected in their deteriorating margin – a 10-point net swing against them since mid-June.

Tom and his boosters imply that Darcy blew it, repeating over and over again that the coming election will be nothing like the previous one, as if that were a fact. But if Tom and Hurst et al are such geniuses at predicting Democratic waves — or the absence thereof — why didn’t any of them run in 2006? By January of last year it had already become obvious to amateurs like me that something BIG was potentially coming in November, yet the DCCC failed to recruit a single experienced candidate to challenge the one-term Reichert.

Compare that to this cycle, with both Tom and Hurst drooling to get into the race after state Rep. Ross Hunter’s ill health knocked him out. If 2008 is gonna be such a tough year for Democrats, why were so many formerly timid Democrats suddenly so anxious to get into the race?

Because they know Reichert is vulnerable. Burner proved it. And now they just want to brush her aside in a cycle they assume will be very good for Democrats indeed.

From The Other Side:

I feel bad for the people of Yakima. I can’t believe that they have to choose between Jim Clements and Curtis King. The Yakima Herald did a rundown of yesterday’s debate.

King lashed out at Clements for expanding health care coverage for kids. Then, he criticized Clements for making it easier for public schools to raise money.

While King is a cold hearted punk, Clements has his drawbacks. He totally blows it while pandering to the local GOP base with this one:

During a discussion on illegal immigration, Clements complained that the suspect in the recent abduction and murder of a 12-year-old Tacoma girl was a noncitizen with a criminal record who should have been “sent home” with Mexican president Vicente Fox following his historic visit to Yakima last year.

The suspect, however, is from Thailand.

Nice! Somebody get a map for the “porch dog.”

Eric Earling offers up what passes for “insight” over at (u)SP:

Darcy Burner’s campaign actually did a pretty good job of hiding how liberal she actually is during the 2006 cycle. If you paid close attention to her campaign rhetoric and some interviews you could catch the fact she fits right into the netroots. But her campaign did a good job of keeping her on message, for what that was worth. What will happen now that it’s to her advantage to proclaim her liberal, progressive bona fides in order to win a primary?

In 2006 Reichert ran on his own record and against her lack of experience as well as against her position on taxes (one of the few topics about which she actually spilled the liberal beans). What happens when she proudly proclaims her position on health care, foreign affairs, etc. to secure her left flank in the primary season? What kind of ammunition will that provide for November 2008?

See, this is exactly why Republicans consistently lose races on the Eastside and statewide — because they have absolutely no idea where the political center is anymore. Eric’s pal Stefan likes to dismiss bloggers like me as the “nutroots,” as if repeatedly calling us crazy automatically makes it so, and while Eric, to his credit, avoids the puerile pun, he seems to have bought into Stefan’s definition. The right has so relentlessly demonized the word “liberal” over the past couple decades that they have no idea what it means anymore.

Consider Eric’s example of a perceived political minefield facing Burner in the 2008 cycle on the issues of “health care” and “foreign affairs.” Burner wants to bring our troops home, whereas Reichert continues to support the president’s failed policies in Iraq. Just last night Reichert backed the president again by voting nay on a bill that would extend health insurance to children of the working poor. And Burner…?

“Let me be absolutely clear: I would have voted differently. In Congress I will fight to provide health care for all Americans, particularly our children. Not only is expanding the Children’s Health Program the right thing to do, funding most of the increase through a hike in the cigarette tax is something that I know the people of the 8th Congressional District would support.”

Tell me, on these two major issues, which candidate is out of step with the district?

On Iraq, health care, reproductive rights, climate change, gay rights, protecting our wilderness, domestic wiretapping and any number of other hot button issues, Burner finds herself smack dab in the mainstream of 8th CD voters. There’s a reason why the Reichert campaign and their surrogates focused almost entirely on dismissing Burner as just some ditzy girl — if voters had voted on the issues, Burner would have won by a comfortable margin.

Next time Eric wants to provide a little insight into the 8th CD race, he might want to base his analysis on something other than outdated assumptions.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m on the air tonight, so I’ll be leaving by the time things officially start, but there will be plenty of other folks with whom to share some hoppy brew and some hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Darcy Burner has issued a press release challenging Rep. Dave Reichert to hold a town hall meeting during the August recess to explain to constituents his unwavering support for President Bush’s Iraq war policies:

“Doesn’t Congressman Reichert have the responsibility to stand in front of the people of his district to explain his stand on the War in Iraq? If he can vote more than a dozen times in favor of continuing and even escalating the war, can’t he talk to the voters in person just once about why he believes what he does?

“The voters deserve to hear directly from their elected representative on an issue of this magnitude, especially when the representative disagrees so strongly with the views of his constituents, as Congressman Reichert does,” Burner said. “While he is back in the district for his August vacation, I hope that this time he will not just hide from his constituents as he has done so many times in the past.”

Reichert, who has attacked Democrats for “meddling” and “politicizing” the war, has held only three town hall meetings since first being elected in 2004, and none since his reelection in 2006. Burner has consistently pledged that she would regularly meet with voters in an open and unscripted manner.

I called Reichert’s district office to ask if he had any town hall meetings, forums or public appearances coming up during the August recess, and was told that he has received invitations to events, but that there is currently nothing on his schedule.

State House Republicans are holding a news conference today at 1PM in Federal Way to call for a “special legislative session to address deficiencies in the state’s sex offender laws.”

What a bunch of assholes.

Or at the very least, what a bunch of idiots. I dunno, perhaps their motives are pure, but coming fresh on the heels of Zina Linnik’s murder, it sure does look like a base attempt to exploit the tragedy for political gain — and given the House Republicans’ recent bogus sex offender postcard escapade, you’d have to be an even bigger idiot to instantly give them the benefit of the doubt.

“Our state has some effective sex offender laws on the books – but others are outdated and incapable of properly protecting the public. Our goal is to identify weak laws, discuss them with the public, and collectively propose solutions,” said Priest. “There are thirteen known registered sex offenders living within five miles of where the news conference will be held – which is a public park. In King County, there are more than 400 sex offenders with no known address. This problem is everywhere and the time to act is now – not later. The forum will help all of us gauge where the public stands and take action accordingly.”

[…] “It’s clear that certain sex offenders are falling though the cracks of our system and the public wants answers and solutions – not excuses. People are demanding action now – and they deserve nothing less. That’s why we are creating a legislative package that we think the public will support,” said House Republican Leader Richard DeBolt.

Yeah, well… we could shoot them all. Cut off their balls. Make every sex offense — no matter how minor, no matter what the circumstances — a mandatory life sentence. No doubt, that’s the kind of “legislative package … the public will support.” And that’s about as comprehensive and thoughtful a package as you’re going to get in a politically charged, two-day special session, coming on the heels of this brutal murder.

Of course, the Republicans know they’re not going to get a special session, and so their grandstanding on this issue is all the more offensive. Most people looked at Zina’s murder and saw a terrible, heart wrenching tragedy. But like our good friend Stefan, the House Republican caucus looked at the murder and immediately saw a political opportunity.

Former WSRP chair Chris Vance recently offered some suggestions to state Republicans on how they might turn around their political fortunes, but he missed the most obvious piece of advice: stop being such a bunch of conniving, mean-spirited, ham-fisted assholes. Playing politics with tax cuts is one thing, but playing politics with the sexual assault and murder of a little girl is simply despicable.

Iraq:

The extent of the deterioration in US-Saudi relations was exposed for the first time today when Washington accused Riyadh of working to undermine the Iraqi government.

The Bush administration sent a warning to Saudi Arabia, until this year one of its closest allies, to stop undermining the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki.

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, are scheduled to visit Jeddah next week. A diplomat in Washington said of the two governments: “There is a lot of bad blood between the two.”

Saudi Arabia:

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve arms sales totaling $20 billions over the next decade for Saudi Arabia and its neighbours, The New York Times reported in Saturday editions.

Coming as some U.S. officials contend that the Saudi government is not helping the situation in Iraq, the proposal for advanced weapons for Saudi Arabia has stoked concern in Israel and among its U.S. backers, the Times said. The package of advanced weaponry includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades for its fighters and new naval vessels.

Israel:

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abul Gheit said Saturday that Arab countries were waiting for a clear indication from Israel that it was interested in discussing peace with its neighbors.

Speaking to Al-Ahram newspaper, Abul Gheit said an Arab peace-for-land initiative that offers Israel normalization with the Arab world in return for a full withdrawal from land occupied during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war was aimed at establishing a Palestinian state through negotiations.

Abul Gheit said opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu told him during talks in Jerusalem earlier this week that he was not opposed to the initiative. Netanyahu was said to be opposed to the Arab peace plan because he redeemed it dangerous to Israel’s security.

I know what you’re saying right now. Wait a second, Lee, that last item doesn’t sound so bad. It’s not. Here’s some more details from occasional neocon supporter Amir Taheri:

The plan is the brainchild of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah who unveiled its basic principles almost five years ago. At the time, Israel dismissed the plan as nothing but a public relations exercise by the Saudis who wished to divert attention from the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Five years later, Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admit that the plan is a serious diplomatic proposal, and should be treated with something other than disdain.

The lesson to be learned here is that the people who have been saying all along that the Arab world can’t be trusted in the peace process have never really understood the real motivations of the leaders in that part of the world. September 11 didn’t just change how we perceive terrorism. It changed how the leaders in the Arab world saw it as well. It was no longer a local problem for them, it became a much more serious liability. And the Saudis, despite their many faults, understood that they were entering a time where they might not be able to use their longstanding trump card, antagonism of Israel, as much as they use to, if at all.

In 2002, when the Saudis first unveiled this proposal, Dick Cheney visited the Middle East with his own mission, to convince the Saudis and others to be on our side in the invasion of Iraq. At the time, two of the most prominent neocons, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, slammed Cheney’s efforts:

Nor is it entirely clear what message Cheney delivered to his Arab friends, even in private. We had hoped Cheney would approach the Saudi royal family with the same tough choice the administration presented Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf a few months ago: You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. You decide.

Instead, Cheney seems to have avoided putting the Arabs on the spot. He told Arab leaders both publicly and privately that the United States had made no decisions regarding Iraq. This relieved the Arab leaders of the need to make a choice, at least for now. We have no doubt that Cheney made clear America’s grave concerns about Iraqi weapons programs, and he described the kind of inspections regime the United States wants in Iraq. But this was hardly news to Arab leaders. Probably the most surprising aspect of Cheney’s message, to those leaders, was that the United States still didn’t know what it wanted to do. As the vice president himself put it at a press conference with President Bush this past Thursday, “I went out there to consult with them, to seek their advice and counsel to be able to report back to the president on how we might best proceed to deal with that mutual problem.” Funny, that’s just what Warren Christopher said on his failed trip to Europe.

The Arab leaders, meanwhile, had their own game plan for the Cheney trip, and they stuck to it with impressive unity and determination. On the eve of Cheney’s arrival, Arab officials outlined their strategy to the Washington Post: “They intend to press the United States hard . . . to shelve any plan for a military strike against Iraq and to concentrate instead on [the Saudi peace plan] and on easing the violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories.” The goal was not to listen to American plans, but to change them, to force the United States to “re-examine” its policies in the Middle East. As one Saudi official told the Post, “The U.S. is concerned with an old issue, Iraq. They are making it a priority when it should not be. . . . Iraq can afford to be delayed. The other issue cannot.” In the tiny United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan told Cheney he was against a strike on Iraq and demanded that the Bush administration “stop the grave and continued Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people.” Just about every other Arab leader told Cheney much the same thing.

So while we’re now stuck in Iraq, spending billions of dollars to arm the country that’s trying to overthrow a government that we’re spending billions of dollars to prop up, the rest of the Arab world is still trying to continue moving forward on an Israeli peace proposal that all the very serious people mistakenly thought was just a ruse. And it should be obvious to even the most casual observer that if we’d just listened to the leaders in the region in 2002 and focused on solving the problem that they wanted to solve, rather than assuming that they had ulterior motives, we’d be in a much better state of affairs today.

Emory Bundy writes at the ‘cut:

[W]hat about the environmental costs and benefits of rail transit? Surprisingly, rail’s environmental costs are quite adverse.

The anti-light rail guys have been flogging this thing for so long that their arguments are changing. Only recently have they been employing certain Al Gore-like rhetoric to try to put the kibosh on rail. It’s funny, really.

Emory Bundy, Kemper Freeman Jr., and other anti-rail guys like to say they’re pro-transit. The like buses, they say. Or bike lines and van pools. Just anything but a train!

You can sometimes judge an argument by who flocks to it’s banner. You see, it’s no wonder why the lunatic right wing hate site Free Republic loves Bundy and his anti-rail screed. So don’t fall for the “we like transit” routine from the anti-rail folks.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will be stopping by tonight, so please join us for some hot conversation, washed down with some icy cold brew.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.