Posts with the tag Iraq War

End of Support for President Obama

My Vote Matters — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:58:37 EST

From this moment forward I am categorically removing my support for President Obama. The tripling of troops in Afghanistan under his watch has absolutely destroyed my faith in him as an independent thinker, diplomat, and logical man, a president who has the best interest of the citizens of America in mind.

Torture Prosecution Must Not Be Feared

Leo — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:12:06 EDT

Regarding the friendly disagreement between the Bard and myself, Bush and Cheney already enjoy undeserved folk hero status, and within the far right realms, they will always enjoy such status regardless of outcome.

I appreciate the debate.

Why politics must be discussed

wbarrett — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:48:23 EDT

I grew up in the midwest in a family in which politics was rarely discussed. Nebraska -- mother was from farm country near Sioux City, Iowa. Except for my father, who I think admired FDR for his efforts in alleviating the suffering of the great depression, most of the Nebraska farmers were confirmed Republicans. (Still are, it appears)

I voted that way, too, until the Vietnam war and some university friends pointed out the folly of my thinking. My last GOP vote was for Ike, and I don't much regret it -- he was fine president. Also, the Democratic party was dominated by a southern faction determined to keep Jim Crow in place -- that disgusted me.

My point is that it took a chance encounter at a party, and someone willing to break through the trivial party chatter to wake me up. That shouldn't be the case -- we need to reach across to others and discuss issues, and learn to do it in a dispassionate way. We surely can come together if we are willing to reconsider our own biasses, listen to others, and keep our focus on the common needs of all our citizens.

With Barack in office, I really can hope that a new era is dawning, in which we can discuss the real issues confronting our nation, and the state of California in particular. I'm concerned about many issues, and just can't decide on any particular priority -- Barack is right that liberal progress must proceed on many fronts at once. I'm pleased that he has the wisdom, intelligence and energy to keep on top of them all.

I maintain a web page with a dozen or so essays that I've written, along with a few others from various media articles -- see below. See especially my comments about no child left behind -- George Bush's well-meaning, but terrible educational testing policies. As a university teacher, that strikes home, as I see the results of our educational system in the students that I'm training in computer engineering.

http://www.wbarrett.us/index.html

Newspapers want the government's help

Maggie Knowles — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:52:20 EDT

May 7, 2009

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

I heard you speak on CSPAN last night regarding the newspapers who want a variance on antitrust laws so they can collude and all charge for their content at the same time.

I loved hearing the story about your father's career as a journalist. And I fear that this very romantic idea of the newspaper industry will cloud your judgment.

The mainstream media at one time felt obligated to serve the public interest. Let's not forget that that's an old idea. We are way beyond journalists serving the public interest. Media serves their board of directors who want access to powerful people and profits, period.

Remember Judith Miller, the New York Times and the Iraq War? How much has this cost Americans in lives, money, wasted resources, wasted time? The costs to us, U.S., have been enormous, and we're still paying for it. Everytime I read the New York Times, I remember that. It's deep within me. I want to love the New York Times, but Judith Miller is in the forefront of my mind everytime I look at it. Because it's cost our country so much, as in the lives of U.S. troops (and innocent Iraqis), less money to educate our kids, no political will to change healthcare, and kept us in an oil economy instead of moving to a 21st century green economy. These newspapers serve special interests. Take the global warming issue, I would say that mainstream media has been largely responsible for keeping the idea that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about alive.

These are issues that effect the life of our species, whether we are to survive or go extinct. Very serious, yet, newspapers (and mainstream media as a whole) have not allowed us to have a serious debate that would actually inform the public in a way that allows the political will to develop to make the change we need. We should have moved to a green economy back in the 1980s. February 15, 2009 George Will's column in the Washington Post distorted facts about global warming to say it's not man-made. I mean, is it ever going to end? Not if our government gives them the tools to continue to support this garbage. Garbage into the public will get you more garbage from the public because these kinds of acts keep the public confused and that's not good for making change.

Also, it appears that many of their so-called journalists reporting on the financial sector may have been planting stories for the purpose of stock manipulation. And during the Obama campaign, the so-called journalists would ask the dumbest questions because they seem to be more interested in creating conflict (where one didn't exist) than going deep into the issues and facilitating a real discussion of them between the newsmakers and the public. Huffington Post is a good example of how to do this differently. CSPAN also had very good election coverage.

When reading these so-called journalists, one has to be very careful to read everything very critically. I wish that when I read an article online, that I could mouse-over the article to get a pop-up window that would also report on the journalist's past articles and their pattern of reporting so that I can clearly see if they've been reporting fairly, or if they've been reporting to support a special interest. For instance, how about CNBC and the stock market? How about Bloomberg and the subprime mortgage meltdown? All these so-called journalists were banging the drum for free markets and deregulation. Now they want to change the laws because they're losing money. Is this fair to the greenshoots like Huffington Post? Is it fair to the public?

The issues and the way reports are slanted to serve special interests (and advertisers) is obvious and it's the norm these days.

If the newspapers are failing, it's because they haven't managed themselves wisely. It's because they have a bad board of directors and bad leadership. It's because they bought into the idea that markets only go up and they unwisely took on more debt than they can now handle. Yes, it's about survival now, but I say that they have not served the public interest. In fact, they have played a huge role in the destruction of our economy.

They are concerned only with profit and to weaken antitrust laws would hurt the public interest.

You know what really gets me about all this? The argument that the newspapers are using could also be used for the Employee Free Choice Act. That a single employee doesn't have much leverage, but if all employees can organize, they then have the leverage needed to make the corporations play fair. But if you were to investigate where these newspapers (who are corporate entities) stand on unions, I'm sure they would think it's ok for corporations to organize, but it's not ok for individual people, say working at Walmart to organize. I would guess that if you were to study their reporting on Employee Free Choice Act, you would see a bias for corporations like Walmart and against unions like UAW, etc. It's disgusting. Where has the point of view of labor and unions been in the mainstream media over the last 30 years? Certainly not in the newspapers, unions and labor don't have a seat at the table as is reflected in the bulging bags of cash the CEOs have compared to the stagnated salaries, 50% loss of value of 401Ks, and loss of homes of ordinary Americans.

So please, leave your romantic ideas about your father's career at the door when considering the interests of the newspapers versus the public interest. Let the market decide regarding the newspapers. Our government already allows media to organize into huge conglomerates that serve special interests against the public interest, why give them any more power? Let the market decide if they pass or fail. Let the new greenshoots like the Huffington Post have their chance to grow in the market. We can have a bright future if only our government will support and nurture the greenshoots that really do serve the public interest.

The public needs a media that we can trust to serve our interest. To support entities whose bad practices have contributed largely to our current economic disaster is not change I can believe in. Please, do not give the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Empire any more power. They are killing our country and we need to move on.

It's time for change Senator. Please, let it happen.

Kindest regards,
Maggie Knowles

OBAMA SONG-17yr old positive lyricist

Fundamental — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:39:43 EDT

I'm a 17yr old positive lyricist out of Richmond,VA. i wrote a rap song about OBAMA. you can hear it at myspace.com/3rdeyeup
no cursing, no negativity. real positive, creative lyrics. hope you guys check it out. peace n bless

Stephen Views the News March 19, 2009

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:03:21 EDT

Stephen Views the News March 19, 2009

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* Beware the Ides of March ~ or when the earth was flat – Although the ides refers specifically to the middle of the month, there were a lot of bad days in March for the Vatican. First the Vatican official newspaper tells woman that a washing machine was responsible for liberating women. This week Pope Benedict declared that condoms were not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa and even contributed to the problem. I was just about to toss in the trash my extra-large, fruit-flavored, lubricated, glow-in-the-dark, latex sheaths when I came across this statement by the Center for Disease Control: "Condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." As much as reactionary forces in the 21st Century want us to ignore science I suggest that to avoid HIV Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases, Wrap That Rascal! For the record some 22 million people live with this infection in Africa.

Closer to home a recent study found that at least 3% of the residents of Washington D.C. are infected with the AIDS virus. “That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.” Many consider this a rate of epidemic proportions since the numbers are actually much higher. The study only reflects people who have been tested.

There are numerous factors that contribute to this AIDS catastrophe in America and one is federal policy. Recall that George W. Bush used the same philosophy as Pope Benedict to address the issue of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). The program was marketed as Abstinence Only. If “only” it had worked! Virtually every study conducted since the program was instituted found it to be a failure. Teen pregnancies and STD are on the increase. Teaching responsible sexual behavior must include responsible sex education. Abstinence Only makes every date a blind date. Now that we have tried an approach that denies science and biological urges it is time to say no to the influence of the religious right as it affects national policy. AIDS is a preventable disease when approached within an intelligent and enlightened framework.

* Quote of the Week ~ by Frank Rich, NY Times columnist – “What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate? Here, at last, is one piece of good news in our global economic meltdown: Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford… In our own hard times, the former moral “majority” has been downsized to more of a minority than ever.” A read of Mr. Rich’s column provides a historical and sociological perspective of the first decade of the 21st Century. He notes that we are entering a period similar to the 1930s which was described by author Frederick Lewis Allen in his book “Since Yesterday,” - the new American faith was the “secular religion of social consciousness.” Can I hear a secular “Amen?”

* Speaking of Rascals ~ a catastrophic failure of federal government – There is much outrage directed toward financial institutions and especially the bonuses paid to AIG executives following billions of dollars doled out by taxpayers to these goniffs (crooks). I would suggest that the greatest outrage should be directed to the Government of the United States of America. Indifference, incompetence and collusion are the operative words of how the interests of the American people were abdicated throughout the federal bureaucracy.

One lowlight of this failure was outlined in a report this week: “Banking and securities regulators identified weaknesses in how certain large financial institutions monitored risk in recent years but they failed to take strong action until after the financial crisis took hold, the Government Accountability Office found in its latest report… The report specifically focuses on how the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Securities and Exchange Commission oversee risk management practices at large financial institutions.” A reasonable query would be, “What the hell were they doing and why?”

* Teflon-coated Congress – Many, many Americans are suffering from the torpedoed economy, disintegrating health care coverage, and imploded retirement plans. Many, many ask, “Why isn’t Congress more in tune with conditions constituents face and doing something about it?” Part of the answer is that members of Congress have over the years provided themselves with golden parachutes. They have a GOVERNMENT FUNDED HEALTH PLAN, a retirement plan that is in effect after only one term of service and they receive automatic pay increases. This year senators receive an automatic pay increase of over $4000. We all have to tighten our belts should read, most of us have to tighten our belt. The decision makers and overseers are doing just fine. It is interesting that they debate whether plebian citizens should have government funded healthcare. It is pathetic that they take no responsibility for not overseeing the financial industry that destroyed the economy, jobs and retirement plans. Speaking of rascals.

* Not so happy Anniversary – Today is the sixth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Like so many of its predecessors it is a war that will live in infamy, as will its initiators. As we begin to leave Iraq I was struck by the observations of Lorelei Kelly writing at The Huffington Post. “Now that America's exit from Iraq is on the horizon -- we need to begin the long overdue conversation about how we got ourselves into this war… We need to talk about the civic and cultural reasons for getting into Iraq, because it will reveal a new way for Americans to understand national security. Blame the Bush administration. Fine. Blame the media. Okay. But "we the people" need to take a few hits as well.” Sometimes it is not easy to look at oneself but it is a necessary growing pain. A reading of Ms. Kelly’s article proves an insightful guide.

* At last, Good News – I was listening to NPR this week when I heard an interview with the founder and editor of Good News Network. With so much bad news surrounding us it struck me that this is a website I should often visit. It specializes in identifying good news. Yes, there is some and it is refreshing.

* The real test for environmentalists ~ putting one’s ass on the line – When I go to the store to buy toilet paper (TP) I bear a mandate that is unequivocal and non-negotiable. It must be Charmin, it must be double thickness, it must be double rolls and it must be soft. I thought of this directive while reading about the devastating effects such intimate products are having on the environment. An article in the NY Times noted: “Fluffiness comes at a price: millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada. Although toilet tissue can be made at a similar cost from recycled material, it is the fiber taken from standing trees that help give it that plush feel, and most large manufacturers rely on them.”

For the most part recycled TP is rejected in the U.S. More than 98 percent of the toilet paper we use is from virgin forests - forests that soak up carbon emissions, prevent flooding and play a major role in the interconnected and inter-related world of ecology. While cogitating about the condition I characterize as “Soft TP Fixation” I decided to conduct a market research survey. I learned that females feel they need a particularly soft wipe for their uniquely sensitive area. This led me to the following solution in my effort to find environmentally friendly alternatives in our daily lives:

Recycled or partially recycled TP should be designated for use in BACK.

Virgin material TP should be designated for use in FRONT.

This idea will help our weak economy by significantly increasing the sales of TP holders (even though most holders are likely manufactured in Asia). Another suggestion would be for Americans to become tougher.

* “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”

Robert Redford (b. 1937) actor, director, producer, philanthropist and environmentalist

Military Backs Obama Plan

Lisa Holmes - Obama Precinct Captain #3361 — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:50:41 EST

Military Leaders Back Obama's Iraq Plan By Paula Wolfson | Washington| 01 March 2009
America's top military leaders say they back President Barack Obama's plan to drawdown U.S. forces in Iraq. They indicated in broadcast interviews they are fairly confident the plan will move forward on schedule.

President Obama's broadcast address, 28 Feb 2009After extensive consultations with defense officials, the president went before members of the military Friday to announce his plan to end the war in Iraq.

"By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," said Mr. Obama.

Roughly two-thirds of the 142,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq will come home. The remainder, 35 to 50,000, will stay behind as a transition force. In time, they too will leave.

"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," he said.

That timetable is in keeping with an agreement reached between the United States and Iraq in the last weeks of the Bush administration.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the only holdover from the Bush Cabinet, says President Obama retains the ability as commander-in-chief to modify the withdrawal plan. But during an appearance on the NBC television program Meet the Press, he appeared confident no changes will be needed.

"I would characterize the likelihood of significant adjustments to this plan as fairly remote," said Gates.

Gates was asked about criticism of the plan from members of the president's Democratic Party, who do not like the idea of a large transitional force in Iraq until 2011.

He stressed their mission will be very different from the combat forces now in place. The defense secretary acknowledged the remaining troops will still face some danger, but far less than today.

"It is a very different kind of mission and the units that will be left there will be characterized differently, they will be called advisory and assistance brigades," he said. "They will not be called combat brigades."

U.S. commanders have indicated they are strongly supportive of the plan. The nation's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, told the Fox News Sunday program that he is comfortable with the president's decision.

"Clearly, the conditions are much more positive than they were two years ago," said Mullen. "And the conditions are set for the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, to take over their own country and be responsible for it."

Both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen said they were pleased with the process that led to the withdrawal plan.

Mullen said the president listened extensively to the commanders. And Gates said he thought Mr. Obama was more analytical than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"He makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they do not speak out, he calls on them," he said.

Gates said he does not know how long he might be willing to stay at the Pentagon, but admitted it might be a challenge to remain through President Obama's current four-year term in office.

Source: Voice of America

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-01-voa16.cfm

Talk Radio: "Conservative" Agitprop

Lidia Seifert — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:09:06 EST

Is the Talk Radio message reflecting the "conservative" political values that the Republicans have been using to block President Obama's Stimulus Bill? The President has been in office only four-weeks, and Talk Radio is already calling him a failure for not having more Republicans on board. In fact, the hosts on this venue brazenly proclaim their hopes for President Obama's failure. Americans are fortunate that the badly needed Stimulus Bill finally past into law; however, the political squabbling emanating from Right-Wing politicians have tried to taint President Obama's victory. Furthermore, it gave the impression that the Republican Party is trying undermine the political policies that America voted for on Nov. 4th.

Listening to “conservative" Talk Radio, it becomes apparent that the purpose of this venue is to “agitate” their audience and stir-up discontent by spreading disinformation. The Republican Party would have a great deal to gain by using Talk Radio as agitators. Under the pretense of entertainment, these radio hosts can use volatile language to validate the pernicious behavior of Republican politicians. Unfettered, these “conservative” hosts instigate undercurrents of superiority in their audience while inserting pejorative words and phrases to describe people with diverse social/ethnic backgrounds. Then to provoke hatred towards these targeted groups, the radio hosts identifies them as the principle cause of America's problems.

These agitprop tactics harkens back to McCarthyism or worse Hitler's Nazism; in Nazi Germany, the “conservative" agitprop accused Jews of causing the economic crisis and destroying their country. The similarities are surreal; Talk Radio is freely rewriting history to mirror their ideologies to facilitates the fear mongering agitprop that they bombard their audience with virtually every day all day long. In addition, there is the bizarre claim that “Liberal” media and the “Liberal” Democrats will soon eliminate their inalienable rights by eradicating “conservative” Talk Radio; evidently, the purpose of this bizarre claim is to induce paranoid delusions.

Conservative Talk Radio and the Republican Party are like minded - functioning in a group-think mode: They spread “disinformation” to confuse the public; they're ignoring the eight-years of George W. Bush’s governance that has nearly destroyed the America economy; and they continuing to blame the Democrats for our huge $10 trillion Outstanding National Debt ($10,024,724,896,912.49 in September 30, 2008). Conveniently forgetting that Clinton was the only Democratic President in office during the last twenty-eight-years and the amount he contributed to the National Debt was $1 trillion. This means that over the past twenty-eight-years, Republican Presidents are responsible for $8 trillion of the Outstanding National Debt.

Undaunted, President Obama is doing everything possible to quickly bring some relief to America's economic troubles with the $787 billion Stimulus Bill and other legislation in the works. However, Republicans are taking every opportunity to obstruct the President’s efforts, and expecting him to solve America's problems their way. Although looking back, these problems were created by the decades of "conservative" mayhem. Nevertheless, despite the Right-Wing political opposition and the "conservative" agitprop, Americans can be proud of our President's performance during his first four-weeks in office. With a steady hand, President Obama is successfully proving his metal by fulfilling a campaign promise to stand up for working class Americans.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Military substance abuse

Lisa Holmes - Obama Precinct Captain #3361 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:41:25 EST

Sen. Claire McCaskill wants to force the Pentagon to change its substance abuse treatment policies worldwide in the wake of recent failures to help addicted personnel at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.

McCaskill, D-Mo., questioned Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a congressional hearing Tuesday and disclosed plans to introduce legislation that would give confidentiality to servicemen and women who get addicted to drugs such as Oxycontin, often after being wounded in combat.

McCaskill described to Gates what she called a "scandal" at Fort Leonard Wood in which more than 150 soldiers dating back to 2007 had trouble getting help for addiction and waited for as long as nine months for treatment.

She attributed chronic problems to military policy in which drug and liquor problems typically are treated as disciplinary matters, not medical issues.

Army records show that legal painkiller use by injured troops has increased nearly 70 percent since the start of the Iraq war six years ago. Surveys show that more soldiers are struggling with prescription drug addiction while also seeking help from Army doctors and counselors.

Eight soldiers at Fort Leonard Wood were convicted by court martial in 2008 of illegal drug use or distribution. Five more await trial on similar charges.

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies about strains on the Pentagon's budget during an a appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill. Gates, the only Cabinet holdover from the Bush Administration, is recuperating from surgery to his left arm, which he injured handling snow equipment over the holidays.

By Bill Lambrecht POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

National Security and Foreign Affairs

Janice C. from Chicago, IL — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:12:31 EST

The National Security and Foreign Affairs (NSFA) sub-committee of Team Obama Hyde Park is engaged in the following: (1. Participating in Camp Hope which is "Organized by a coalition of social justice, religious and peace organizations from the Chicago area, Camp Hope's goal is to remind President-elect Obama of the progressive themes he sounded in his campaign and urge him to follow through with policy changes when he takes office later this month" (http://camphope2009.org/) Among the sessions members are attending are:Discussion Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq; Jan. 7, Myths and Realities about U.S. in Afghanistan; Jan. 10, Witness Against Torture Reform; Jan.11, The Gaza Crisis; Jan. 14. (2. Arranging presentations to community groups of the state of readiness of Hyde Park to respond to a natural or man-made disaster. We will be working with the Red Cross (http://www.usa.redcross.org/) and others with an emphasis on educating the public on preparedness.

Sharon Klopner, Committee Chair

Restaurant Specials

Ron from La Mesa, CA — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:08:39 EST

The restaurants are indicative of gauging sentiment and playing to the public when reflecting "the taste" of the nation, just as when supporters of the past regime's anger at France over the Iraq war caused restaurants to change the name of certain dishes like 'French Fries' to "Freedom Fries". I'm sure that many of the restaurants across the nation will now start offering a dish called "Broccoli Obama".

Sacred Cows - The Devil's Advocates

Rheanni — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:15:15 EST

The Status Quo sure is is acting like an old curmudgeon with it’s arms folded in stubborn resistance to any form of change that doesn’t suit it’s own privileged agenda.

If we make one suggestion, it pooh-poohs the idea and ridicules our naiveté’.

If we have several ideas, it digs its heels into the ground like a stubborn mule.

If we have studied the situation and are audacious enough to create a plan, complete with procedures for accountability and new infrastructure – then the real trouble begins.

The Old Guard has rolled out its Sacred Triad of worn out dogma, officially dubbed the Sacred Cows of Procrastination.
They are in this order:
“Wait and See”
“Drag Your Feet” and
“If Its New, It Could Never Work.”

Massacre! Act Now.

Unknown user — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:11:29 EST

This is Holocaust. Unacceptable by any religion. Against the Jewish Faith. Stop Ehud Barack and his Crew killing the poor, innocent Gazan women, children and elderly.

Hardball

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:29:57 EST

If you are not already watching, please go online and check out Hardball with Chris Matthews today. I can't believe the crap coming out of the mouth of Frank Gafney (spelling)? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28262158#28262158 Talking about outrageous!

Carrots/Sticks Phrase Invokes a Wrong Master/Slave Methaphor, Obama Should Not Use It.

PDSimic — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:50:27 EST

Source: New York Times
Link: Obama Says Will Pursue Carrot / Stick Iran Policy

"Carrot and Stick" phrase used by US foreign policy establishment for years is deeply insulting, as the implied semantic frame is that of an absolute superiority of us over them, a master /slave relationship, and not one of a respect and possible partnership. I still trust that Obama will make changes for the better in our foreign policy, but given some of his recent appointments it is reasonable to question if this trust is based on reasonable estimates and facts, or on a wishfull thinking (change *I want to believe* in). Nevertheless, I am surprised that a person with his multicultural background, experience, and sensitivities is not more careful with choice of methaphors.

The Spin Of Main Stream Media Outlets

Taylor B. — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:09:44 EST

The main stream media is the tool that is used to convey information to millions of homes regardless if the information is truthful or not. Not much faith can be put into a main stream media outlet because of the small number of huge corporations that control a large portion of the mainstream media. The consolidations of media outlets that is taking place now only allows for a more unified reporting style wether be conservative or liberal.

The main stream media is used to gain consent from the public for the government to take actions that ordinarily would be unacceptable and examples would be the domestic spying that has taken or the case for the Iraq war. The American public were led to believe for months that Saddam Hussien had or was making nuclear weapons and the people conveying some of the information were paid pentagon officials that were put on main stream television networks as deemed "experts" without disclosing their professions and employer. People were trusting of the government and the information being provided by the main stream media.

The situation with the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are very slow to progress and will be for quite some time and it is clear that ancient lands are no where near becoming self sustaining countries and the politicians know that fact as do most journalists. The notion that President Elect Obama or Senator McCain would be able to end two wars is a complete fabrication. What has been ignited in those two countries is now spreading to Pakistan and other countries in the middle east and Africa that for a while the populations seemed less extreme towards western nations particularly the United States and Israel.

I believe independent news sources to be the best form of reporting and the most consistent too. The main stream news sources are very polarized and often don't tackle controversial issues or issues that conflict with the network or sponsors. Steps should be taken to ensure that hard working journalists and the news organizations that they work for are not being bought up or have their voices drowned out by corporate media companies.

The Case for Colin Powell

Pam Hayes — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:45:35 EST

Barack Obama is my hero as of some time in 2008. Before him, I considered Colin Powell to be a hero – a Republican four-star general with integrity.

Tracking Legislation. Effecting Change.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:02:28 EST

Commit yourself to identifying and tracking legislation, practices, and policies that are helping to end the war in Iraq or are furthering it, and commit yourself to writing letters to the editor and to your lawmakers that carefully and tactfully detail why this war must end.

Check out my new blog. Keep Joe Lieberman

mathpol — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:00:42 EST

Keep Joe Lieberman

For those of you non-clickers, here is the first post.

Democrazies

Here is the petition you are urged to sign at http://liebermanmustgo.com/

"We CANNOT tolerate a leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus who supports George Bush and McCain's War in Iraq. We CANNOT tolerate a Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who endorses and stumps for McCain. We call on the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and his leadership role."

This is preceded by the statement:

"Demand the Steering Committee remove Joe Lieberman's position within the Democratic Caucus in 2009."

These people are so busy foaming at the mouth that they can't even write plain English. Do they want Lieberman removed from the Caucus entirely or just as chairman of Homeland Security. What is his "leadership role", other than his chairmanship." He is not on the Steering Committee, according to them.

As for the petition itself, it is laughable. These people are clearly living in the past. The election campaign is over. Obama is President-Elect. He says he will be president of all the people, which includes Lieberman and McCain. The latter even referred to him as “My president” in his concession speech.

So this group who “cannot tolerate…” is indeed intolerant. And hypocritical as well. They refer to “George Bush and McCain’s War.” Let’s see. Those voting for it included Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards, among others. (But not my Senator, Carl Levin, to his everlasting credit.)

This group also wants to disenfranchise the people of Connecticut, who re-elected Lieberman (running as an "Independent Democrat") in 2006. They seem indifferent to the following facts.

Letters to the Editor, from Ohio, for Barack

Michael in Ohio — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:24:31 EST

For many supporters, volunteering isn't enough. They need to show their support in other, far more public ways--they want others to hear their voice for change.

There are the untraditional ways--a music video, a painted pick-up truck, or a website that gives a free song to people who pledge to vote. But the conventional, and still effective way, is to write a letter to the editor. Here are a few from supporters in the Buckeye State, writing about why they support Barack Obama.

From the Chillicothe Gazette - "Obama has the vision to improve America's health care system":

I am a health care worker and have been a nurse since 1977. I have worked in several areas of health care. I would like to share with you one of the many reasons why I support Barack Obama for president. He cares about people and has the knowledge, energy and the ability to work for all of us to see that Americans have access to the health care they need. Currently in the United States, there are 45 million Americans who don't have health care insurance. I feel the health of the people should be a national priority.
Here are a few examples of the annual compension packages paid to CEOs of some of the major insurers: United Healthcare $8.3 million, WellPoint, Inc. $5.2 million, Cigna $4.7 million (Atlantic Information Services, April 24, 2006). Can you see where I am going with this?
OK, here is what Obama is proposing: If you already have insurance and are satisfied with it, you can keep it. If not, you will be able to buy a new insurance plan that's similar to the plan federal employees receive. If you do not have insurance at all, it will be made available to you. No one will be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition or illness. If you cannot afford insurance, you will get a subsidy. Employers would be encouraged to offer health care coverage to their employees, and would be assisted by the government in providing this coverage. Obama's plan is not government-run health care, it builds on the employer-sponsored insurance system. The income tax exclusion would be retained and people without employer-based insurance would be offered a refundable tax credit (percentage-based on income).
--Vickie Smith, Waverly

From the Findlay Courier - "Obama Would Help Rural Ohio"

As the former Ohio state director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Office, I can say from experience that state and federal partnership is critical if we are to make much-needed investments in rural Ohio.
Barack Obama has two comprehensive and complementary plans that will move rural Ohio in the right direction. He has a vision for rural America and a health care plan for the nation that will enable our communities to thrive and our citizens to have access to affordable and quality health care.
Obama knows the unique demands of agriculture and is a strong supporter of the 2008 Farm Bill, which makes historic investments in conservation, renewable energy, and rural infrastructure and provides a safety net to family farmers.
Numerous innovations in the 2008 Farm Bill will directly affect rural Ohio, including a micro-enterprise program for small businesses and entrepreneurs, farmland preservation, and expanded access to fresh fruits and vegetables for our school children, which helps our youth and farmers alike. John McCain stated that he would have vetoed the bill.
--Linda Jones Borton, Ottowa

From the Wilmington News Journal - "Doesn't want four more years of the same"

I'm an Obama supporter and have been since the very early days of his campaign. I watched him win the Iowa caucus and was so proud of Iowa it moved me to tears as I listened to Barack’s speech that night. I know that none of this makes me unusual because most of his entire following feels the same way, particularly if they are young, college educated, men and women.
On to world affairs, when I watched Sen. Obama in Europe and the reception he received, I couldn’t help think how wonderful it would be to have a president that we could be proud of once more. I thought it would be so nice if Americans could visit Europe and not be viewed as ugly Americans.
Sen. Obama gives me hope that we can be a nation of innovation, and discovery, and that once again we can lead the world in technology, research, science, medicine and education. We have fallen terribly behind under this backward fundamentalist administration that rejects science.
--Nancy Compton, Wilmington

From the Zanesville Times Recorder - "Get the facts"

I will be so glad when this election is over and we no longer have to listen to the Republicans distort the truth, even in a previous letter published in the Times Recorder. Yes it is true that Obama will raise your taxes if you make more than $250,000, however, those of us who do not will actually see a tax cut. And if you are a senior citizen making less than $50,000 per year he will eliminate all income taxation. These are facts that even those who say we should "get informed" fail to mention.
If you want the facts on Sen. Obama you need to turn off those distorted McCain commercials and stop by the Obama headquarters, at 126 Muskingum Ave., and literature will be provided for you. You can also visit the Obama Web site at www.barackobama.com for factual information. I'm sure when you have the true facts you will be ready to cast your vote on Nov. 4, with pride and confidence.
Yes we do need change in Washington, the kind of change we will get from Obama and Biden.
--Bob Weber, Zanesville

From the Mansfield News Journal - "Obama, Biden dedicated to helping women"

I am making 77 cents for every dollar my male counterpart is making. Under John McCain's "Plan for the American Woman" this is acceptable because in John's own words, I "probably need more training." An Obama administration will enforce the Equity Pay Act and fight job discrimination.
I'm a single mom working two jobs, with no health insurance, and I'm stricken with breast cancer. Under McCain's plan, I am so messed up. Barack Obama is committed to ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage by the end of his first term.
Ohio women, don't take my word for this. Study the issues and find out for yourself. And even if you feel it's too late for yourself, consider the futures of your daughters and granddaughters. We need someone in Washington who respects women, not one who will choose one for his VP for all the wrong reasons. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are truly dedicated to improving the lives of women.
--Jeanne Alexander,Lucas

From the Sun Sentinel - "Independent says that Obama was easy choice for President"

I guess that I am the target audience for the Obama and McCain decision. I am an Independent voter in the state of Ohio. Once again, I believe that Independents from Ohio will decide the election.
Over the years I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and even Ross Perot. This year, I am voting for Barack Obama. It was a pretty easy choice.
Why do I say this and what do I want? I want the war in Iraq to end. I want someone to look out for the middle class. I want to hold Wall Street accountable for its actions. I want to find alternative energy sources in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I want both political parties to work together. I want a vice president that does not embarrass this country. I want this country to work with our allies, instead of pushing them around.
In my opinion, "trickle down economics" is not working. Unchecked free trade is not working. Letting the free market manage Social Security will not work. Putting health care completely in the hands of the free market without regulation will not work.
--North Ridgeville

From the Canton Repository - "Want to hear the sound of jobs in Stark again? Then vote for Barack Obama"

Last summer, a young woman moved in beside me on Genoa Avenue. After a cool, clear evening, she had to ask what that odd pounding noise was that she heard in the night. "A forge," I told her, and proceeded to explain the complicated process of drop forging and how that bass note boom made tools.
It dawned on me later that I could have given her a very simple answer. "That sound is the sound of industry."
I could have gone on to say. "Listen closely, as it soon may be gone."
So much of our county is filled with the deafening quiet one can hear only in an empty sweeper plant, or standing in the vast, unfilled parking lot of a vacant steel mill.
These haunting silences are the echoes of the Bush administration. An administration which has, by its promotion of unfair trade deals and tax breaks for companies that take their business off-shore, caused the loss of over 180,000 jobs in Ohio. That is 61 jobs a day!
If we, the voters, choose a candidate who has voted more than 90 percent of the time with George Bush, what will we hear for the next four — or eight — years?
Silence.
One big, empty silence.
On Election Day, remember that when you touch that screen, the sound it makes will echo through our future.
If you choose to elect Barack Obama, you are choosing to change that sound to the sound of steel mills building wind turbines. To the sound of molds filling with plastic, forming solar panels to help bring us out of this energy crisis. To the sweet sound of jobs, and a healthy middle class.
Make that sound, people!
--Barbara Lewis, Perry Township

Why do YOU support Barack Obama? Why are YOU going to vote for him today?

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN, STUPID!

Bernice — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:34:12 EST

Fourteen years ago “It’s the economy, stupid!” reverberated in the consciousness and pocketbooks of millions of Americans as they went to the polls. In these few days before this historic election, I believe all of the rhetoric, lies and half-lies can be clarified through the lens of a slight variation of that slogan: This time around, “It’s for the CHILDREN, Stupid,” We hear so often that “children are our future.” For many, this is a mere platitude, but to me and millions of parents, teachers, school counselors and others whose lives revolve around children, we DO think of the future in terms of how well-prepared all of them must be to continue the dream and promise of America. And so to anyone still not sure whether to vote for Senator Obama, we would say: Please review the news of the past few weeks and months, or just open a comprehensive national newspaper today, and ask yourself: Does this describe the country you want for your children, or must we vote for change? Don’t automatically take my words for truth or lies--cross-check my statements against unbiased sources.

In today’s America:·

1. We spend Billions of dollars every month in the Iraq War Senator McCain supports, while our schools, bridges and highways here are crumbling. Working people put off important medical procedures because they have no insurance or can’t afford the co-pays. ·

2. When the Republican Majority and then Bush took office, the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.40. Major businesses in our towns are now closing. Retirement funds have dwindled because of unregulated risky stock market transactions and unethical, immoral mortgage practices targeting primarily middle and lower-income people. We who are “working class” know too many people who have lost their homes, been evicted, and are searching for help with food, car, medical payments and other basic needs. As a school counselor, I see this every day among our school population—including students, school staff and administrators. ·

3. Because of President Bush’s NCLB “reforms”, our students spend at least 7 weeks of every school year in preparation for and taking standardized tests. Right-wingers constantly insult us teachers and Teacher Union Members, but we are fighting to bring back our children’s freedom to learn.·

4. Senator McCain voted with President Bush to provide tax incentives to multi-billion dollar companies who move their operations OUT OF THE U.S., thus taking away the jobs of our middle-class. Why did even V.P. Cheney’s company, Halliburton move their headquarters to Dubai?

5. Most support jobs in our Military are managed by private companies. The shameful conditions for our wounded troops at Walter Reed were due to little or no oversight of private companies hired with our tax dollars to supposedly take care of them, and Blackwater and others in Iraq have created many of the controversial situations our Military personnel have had to deal with and for which they’ve had to pay a steep price.·

6. Do you remember the devastation of New Orleans because of the ineptness of what SHOULD have been massive, immediate Federal intervention before and after Hurricane Katrina? Do you remember the PDB memo read to President Bush on August 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States” and reports as far back as 1998 and ’99 about the possibility of using airplanes as weapons? Compare these glaring, tragic INACTIONS to the MASSIVE Republican Congressional and Presidential efforts to force continued care of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo. ·

7. Even though he has been in Congress for the 7 years since 9-11, 5 of which were completely under Republican control--Senator McCain did not sponsor nor pass any bills to make sure our docks, trains, and cargo are checked to avoid attack. Non-partisan safety experts have sounded the warning that it is largely due to good luck that we have not had further domestic terrorist attacks, but Bush and McCain, although they’ve had total Legislative control, have made no efforts to change this.·

8. Many religious Americans have sifted down all of Christ’s teachings to two areas: being anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. They believe that these are the only two issues that should determine who is a good Christian and for whom they should vote. I won’t press the usual arguments we’ve heard thousands of times that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is NOT an easy choice, and that being gay is NOT a choice at all. I’ll just ask that you realize this: NEVER in his 26-year career did Senator McCain nor any other Republican for that matter, despite, again remember, having complete Legislative control, NEVER DID ANYONE pass federal anti-abortion and anti-gay laws. President Bush NEVER presented such legislation; his party NEVER presented it. Why didn’t they, when they had every opportunity to do so?? I believe they would rather have this as an issue to DIVIDE US than to actually pass these laws. Isn’t it time that we look back to the real intent of our Gods as to what is important about our religions? ·

9. There are hundreds of other dire issues I could raise, time and space allowing, but the final point I will make has to do with the mind- and heart-numbing topic that for some reason we’ve heard very little of for several months: More than 4,000 of our children, parents, sisters and brothers have been killed in a war that has accomplished…WHAT? Really, WHAT? An estimated 100,000 have returned to Walter Reed, Bethesda, and other military hospitals, therapy centers and nursing homes—broken, battered, brain injured, and suffering from intense PTSD from the hell they lived. For WHAT?

I know many right-wing newscasters and talk show hosts regularly berate those of us who consider these statistics tragic. They call us unpatriotic; they call us un-American. But they did not hold my daughter as she wept at her husband’s bedside at Walter Reed for 4 months. They did not accompany us as we visited these broken men and women in the other intensive care units and V.A. nursing homes for 2 years. They did not help us wipe the saliva that dripped from their frozen faces; did not suction their breathing tubes as they choked; did not massage and move their paralyzed limbs. My children’s and thousands of others’ lives are forever damaged. The pain caused directly and indirectly by Bush’s and McCain’s policies is overwhelming; it is one of the biggest reasons why I could never vote for McCain-Palin: under them, the Bush preemptive-war philosophy would not only be continued, but would increase. I cannot bear the thought of my beautiful students, nephews or niece having to participate in future illegal, unnecessary wars.

Is this the world we want for our children?

Senator McCain would have us believe that HE and his perplexing VP choice are the change agents we need. He--the Republican Senator of 26 years, who by his own admission has “voted with President Bush at least 90% of the time” has tried to co-opt the message of the real, obvious symbol of United States’ Political Change—Barack Obama. To believe that McCain would suddenly do all the things he could have easily done in the last 26 years is to not be grounded in reality. McCain as Change-Agent is Delusion.

Barack Obama in every aspect of his personality, experience, and being is the personification of change. The Hope he offers is real. The good judgment and intelligence surrounding every move of his long campaign and career foreshadow the care and prudence that will be invaluable in the process of trying to reclaim the greatness of America that our children have the right to experience. Please vote for Obama-Biden. It’s for the children, stupid! --Bernice García Baca is with the Santa Fe Public Schools and has been a Teacher, Counselor and Child Advocate for 32-years.

Joe the Iraqi

Rami Saffarini — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:22:41 EDT

In the midst of the economic turmoil, the Iraq war is taking a back seat in this presidential campaign. Not so for the 400,000 Iraqi Americans. With continued ties to Iraq, the single most important issue on their minds is the fate of their ancestral home. Whom they will cast their votes for on November 4th is not as clear.

Will Iraqi Americans vote for the candidate who wants to end the war or for the one who vows to continue fighting? Not an easy choice if your home country is the prize. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi community is split.

At the beginning of the campaign, an undecided Iraqi American friend of mine was leaning toward McCain, afraid that if Obama followed through with his promise to withdraw American troops, Iraq would fall into chaos. Now he is leaning toward Obama. Why? He says Obama will be more accepted by the Iraqi people, and thus more likely to make breakthroughs. Second, he hopes Obama’s continued pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their own country by setting a timetable for withdrawal will yield results.

I add that, of the two, Barack Obama is the more thoughtful, more patient candidate. John McCain is locked into the mindset that the military has the most potent answer to all international crises.

The Failed Policies of George W. Bush

Steven from Norman, OK — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:54:23 EDT

According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.

1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.

2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.

3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.

4) The Patriot Act

5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.

6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".

7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.

8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.

9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.

10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...

11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)

12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".

13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.

14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.

15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.

16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.

17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.

18) Anti-choice-ism

19) Anti-intellectualism

20) Anti-Europeanism.

21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.

22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.

23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.

24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.

25) While we're at it, John Bolton.

26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.

27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?

28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.

29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.

30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.

31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.

32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?

33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.

I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.

(cross-posted at quibblingpotatoes.blogspot.com)

The Next VIce President...(circa 2002)

Larry — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:27:32 EDT

You can find this on Biden's senate web site,but like Sen. Obama he was asking the right question. I'll forgive him his vote for two reasons - 1) I take his reasoning seriously 2) the authorization was going to pass anyway.

Debating Iraq
By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar

July 31, 2002

This op-ed originally appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES on July 31, 2002.
DEBATING IRAQ
By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar
Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power -- a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings -- which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee -- administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely. Without prejudging any particular course of action -- including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options -- we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions.
First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them -- against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons.
Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course.
A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe.
Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.
We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared.
###
Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting ranking Republic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The New York Times Home Page:
http://www.nyt.com/

Distributing The Wealth

John DesMarteau, MD — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:27:48 EDT

The Republicans have charged the Obama campaign with being socialist because of the comment that Sen. Obama made to "Joe The Plumber." One Florida TV anchor (Barbara West) even brought up Karl Marx (her husband is a Republican strategist) in a sateliite interview with Sen. Biden.

Since the 16th amendment passed in 1913 we have had a progressive income tax that does indeed "distribute" a portion of the wealth:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Federal Income tax funds the Federal budget—at least the portion that isn't deficit. Some of the money goes to provide the safety net in this country. Examples are Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Both cover many people without means. And then there is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which was started under the Reagan Administration. In 1986 Reagan called the EITC, “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” If Reagan is McCain's hero as he had said he is, then would he call Ronald Reagan a socialist?

So it's complete hogwash to label Sen. Obama a socialist since he didn't invent any of these systems.

But if we want to talk about distributing the wealth then let's talk about the Iraq War launched by a Republican president with whom John McCain agreed. How many times did George W. Bush go to Congress with his hat in hand asking for billions and billions of dollars in emergency spending to fund the war? Many of those dollars went into the coffers of companies that back Republicans and that won no-bid contracts. Blackwater is a good example. To make fiscal matters worse these dollars were not included in the budget.

In addition, there had been a redistribution of wealth under Republican rule: the rich have become richer and the poor poorer.

The bottom line it's totally disingenuous for the McCain-Palin campaign to label Sen. Obama a socialist.

Respect and Foreign Policy

Economan — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:29:53 EDT

Socialist, at least in the Palin vocabulary, is a four-letter word. Palin is everything I had always feared, an insular, poorly read, minimally educated buffoon who has little appreciation outside the world of her own. McCain, who spent the worst years of his life in Asia, has actually yet to say a nice thing about that region of the world.

Yes, America is a great nation, and with the most amazing populace, able to answer any call-to-action. But, those of us behind Obama, recognize our abilities when united, still, remember that there is a pretty big world out there, with many countries that have been around longer than we have.

To suggest that socialism is somehow an inept form of government, as a presidential candidate is distasteful and downright disgraceful. Two of our allies are still considered socialist nations, namely, Portugal and India. Are McCain and Palin claiming that socialism is such a bad form of government that we owe almost all of our debt to another socialist nation, i.e., China?

How should anyone trust McCain to have good foreign policy when every word that comes out of his campaign offends one part of the world or another? Let's look at some examples:

1. McCain, when offered the chance to say, "What's wrong with being an Arab?" answered, "He's a decent American." What would someone in the Middle East think of such a statement?

2. Socialism is bad. Many governments have socialized parts of their lives. Take Canada and Scandinavia. Socialized healthcare... works pretty well. Should a president ever say that another nation's form of government is wrong? Especially an ally of this nation?

These two are in fact, far worse than "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" or the comment about selling cigarettes to Iran. What amazes me is that McCain professes this love for the unborn, but refuses to acknowledge the right to life for those in other parts of the world. Why should we hate a group of people for the behavior of their government?

I have been around the world enough to know that the world still loves the American people. They just hate the way (half the country) votes.

GOLD STAR FOR JOE BIDEN

KiDS for OBAMA - Missouri — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:37:07 EDT

I am home from school today because I am feeling just a little sick, but I think you should know what happened in Colorado yesterday. Mom gave me permisson to type this, but then I have to go back to bed. Joe is Vice Presidential Candidate, Senator Joe Biden.

Joe talked about something unexpected that happened to him earlier in the day. He said a man came up to him and said, "bring our kids home from Iraq."

Joe's eyes got watery as he said, “he pinned this on my lapel. It’s a gold star. The only way you get a gold star is if you lose a child in battle."

He then said, "And folks," his throat tightening a bit, “that’s the second reason why I’m running. We’re going to end this war.”

“Amen!” a man shouted as volunteers applauded, several wiping their eyes.

OBAMA-BIDEN '08

Obama Inspired Song and Video

Brad from Beverly Hills, CA — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:25:08 EDT

There is a song and video inspired by Obama that was done by recording artist Donny B. Lord on YouTube. It is very well done and the music and lyrics are powerful and haunting. It could be Obama's inauguration song.

Feel free to share with other groups and friends.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFTe1dMQvPM

Victory in Iraq?

Charles from Hammond, IN — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:21:35 EDT

It's funny how Senator McCain says he'll "bring the troops home in victory not in defeat" but at the same time he boast of the success of what's happening in Iraq. Which is it? Is there success in Iraq now or not? Removing the troops RESPONSIBLY seems to resonate "Success" to me if the whole plan is to RESPONSIBLY turn control over to the Iraqi government.

Our Troops Are Honorable Regardless Of The Failed Policy Of Politicians

Leo — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:52:36 EDT

I am hopeful that at this next and final debate, Barack will make clear that McCain's idea that our troops can only return honorably under a republican watch married to the Iraq war will be addressed appropriately.

One of the lessons we learned as a country from Vietnam, is that our American soldiers who sacrifice everything in order to protect our great nation, should never again be held accountable for failures of politicians who held fast to a failed foreign policy.

Four Prominent Ohio Newspapers Endorse Barack for President

Michael in Ohio — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:10:35 EDT

Newspapers across the Buckeye state have come out in favor of Barack Obama, and some in places you would never expect. Here are a few recent endorsements from the flagship newspapers in Springfield, Canton, Dayton, and Toledo. From different perspectives, they all aptly emphasize the importance of this moment, and an Obama presidency.

You are not better off than you were four years ago. Or even eight years ago for that matter.
This is not a rehash of the past; it is the basis of a decision for the future.
The News-Sun Editorial Board is endorsing Barack Obama for President as the best hope for the nation to return to prosperity and to regain its standing in the world.
Obama is clearly a smart, caring, committed candidate for the job of president.
Obama is not an idealogue. His polices are pragmatic and tempered with the realization that the Bush economy may foreclose or postpone some of his initiatives.
Moreover he has quickly mastered the important issues confronting America. No one who listens to him can doubt that.
One of Obama's best qualities is simply his ability to inspire people.
We're going to need that in the coming years.

On Main Street, families are watching their homes and retirement savings lose value while the cost of their most basic needs goes up and up. On Wall Street, a hands-off approach to oversight of financial institutions has led to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Halfway around the world, the United States remains mired in a country it should never have invaded.

Stark Countians rightly want change in Washington. The Repository editorial board believes that the presidential candidate who can deliver on this demand is Democrat Barack Obama.
In the realm of foreign policy, Obama said unequivocally in 2002 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a mistake, as The Repository did. It was not a popular conviction, but it was the right one. McCain supported the pre-emptive war, as did the vast majority of Congress.
We believe that Obama's intellect, caution, levelheadedness and calm demeanor make him better suited to lead a nation that must respond to many unwelcome changes with yet more change. The Repository endorses Sen. Barack Obama for president.

In this unhappy passage, the nation faces a happy choice: a brilliant young man offering a new generation of leadership — and a remarkable turning point in the nation's history — opposes an accomplished veteran who has punched all the right tickets in his rise toward the presidency.

Both are thoughtful, modern people alert to the real problems of the world and the nation. Neither should be chosen because the other is frightening.
In a time of change, Sen. Obama is the more promising leader. With his agile mind, often pitch-perfect judgment and preternatural calm and self-confidence, he seems built for the job of sorting through this thing, if anybody can.
The nation faces a choice that looks more and more like a choice between the future and the past. It has never been one to shrink from the future.

Like another member of Congress from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, Senator Obama initially rose to prominence on the strength of soaring oratory. Over the past 18 months of the grueling campaign, his background has been thoroughly inspected and dissected by the press and a political opposition dedicated to keeping him from the White House.

The man who has emerged is young (47) but well-educated and accomplished, both as a state legislator and a member of the United States Senate. He is somewhat professorial but not stodgy, and in our direct contact with him he proved to be one of few politicians at his level with the capacity to actually listen to others and appreciate what they have to say.

We have to ask ourselves: Which candidate will be better able to inspire the American people? Which will do a better job of casting off the politics of personal destruction and appealing to our better natures, calling us to service, encouraging needed sacrifices, and developing the new approaches necessary for the 21st century? Which will see the current troubles as an opportunity to shape a better future?

Themes from the abbreviated reign of John F. Kennedy, as well as FDR, resonate in 2008. Fear drives the domestic and international financial markets. As FDR realized, calmness, confidence, and optimism are part of the solution. In these troubled times, JFK's call to ask what we can do for our country instead of what it can do for us gains new meaning. Americans must step up and hold out a helping hand to their fellow citizens both as individuals and collectively.

On being a military family with Iraq veterans; on witnessing the racial divides of the 1960's; on why Obama is the bridge to the future

Lietta Ruger — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:17:27 EDT

Coming down to the wire, and it is looking positive for Barack Obama. Observing closely and with vivid interest, my participation has been more from the sidelines than as an active campaign volunteer. I figured since we have two in our family who are returning Iraq veterans, both having served 'stop-loss', extended 15 month deployments, their contribution to this country has been enormous on it's own merit. Our sil is in Iraq again, in his second stop-loss, extended 15 month deployment. His wife and children are paying a hefty price for these long back to back deployments. Meanwhile, we have been one military family speaking out against the Iraq war since the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Who are we? We are myself, a traditional and proud of the term 'military brat', and later, a young military wife with young husband deployed to Vietnam; and my husband, a Vietnam-era veteran.

I haven't been too much into donating or campaigning, preferring instead to permit other citizens carry that load. Now that the elections are coming down to the finish line, I gave my first 'donation' - small amount of $$ that it was, I found I was feeling more and more compelled to give something before the campaign finished. I wanted to be able to say more than that I support Obama, but that I actually gave a small amount to his campaign. The sacrifices of the loved ones in our family who are giving far more than $$, who are willingly putting their very lives on the line, cannot be matched by my words and that is equally true for every other soldier, marine, sailor, airmen putting his or her life on the line to serve our country.

OPERATION AMERICAN FREEDOM

Neil from Syosset, NY — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:46:44 EDT

Who remembers Operation Iraqi Freedom??? That's what Bush called the invasion of Iraq. He proclaimed his vision of a Middle east where despotic nations were replaced with Democratic governments. That phrase "operation Iraqi freedom" is never heard lately.
Maybe it confused republicans who thought he is a Democrat every time he states he wants to replace dictatorships with Democracies in the middle east.
Bush's policy would really get at the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict but it costs a lot of money to solve that problem. Clinton dropped bombs on Saddam Hussein every time he broke the peace agreement. A much cheaper approach to the problem that would have left Hussein in power in a starved and debilitated Iraq and much more money and more soldiers would have been available to fight Al Querida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of the people who went to pull out of Iraq too quickly forgot about the world trade center disaster. People are becoming so forgetful and so stupid, I wont be surprised if the entire chain of events that lead up to that disaster happens again. Since Palin's traitor husband is loyal to an independent nation of alaska and no to the United States, we cant count on the Palinists to stop terrorist incidents. The FBI will erase Highest priority terrorist warning messages again because the government is infiltrated with traitors that openly refuse to support the United States!!!! And that openly espouse hatred of our country.
So what will the fascistic mental cases do if they get power in the White House again. Bet they'll accidentally erase warning messages AGAIN and the hijacked airplanes will drop on the Pentagon again!!!! THAT HAPPENNED ON GEORGE BUSH'S WATCH!!!!!!! His FBI let that idiot go after he caused 3000 people in new york to be killed in the World trade Center Disaster!!!!!
A mistake anyone could make right? Wrong!!! The politician in the debates are so politically correct and they are taking so many pains to stop the dirty politics that was tearing America apart. That gives us hope they will turn the tide against fascism as Bush said explicit in a couple of speeches. One of these days their squeaky clean avoidance of "dirty politics" will filter down to the rest of society and we will put all the quislings and traitors that have damaged our homeland where they belong. They should start listening to the sane people or else we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Mistakes that killed people from all political parties and from all classes and all races.

Dear Cindy McCain: (Blue Star Mom to Blue Star Mom)

Maura Satchell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:57:58 EDT

body {margin:8px} .tr-field {font:normal x-small arial}

Dear Cindy McCain:

I, too, am part of your ranks, part of the sisterhood that makes up the Blue Star Moms. I think I’m a bit senior to you and Sarah, at least in the most recent post-9/11 wars, since my eldest was one of those Marines perched on the berms in the "no-fly zone" waiting to go into Iraq from day one. Like you, I am overwhelmingly proud of my sons and their service to our country.

Because of my seniority, I don’t think you shared the quandary I was in because of Senator McCain’s strong support for the war from the days right after 9/11. You see, because my son was one of the first to go into Iraq. I wanted to truly buy into the belief that it was a just war though inside my head was screaming "what about Afghanistan? I’d rather he went there!" I wanted to believe we HAD to do this – or else.

You missed that early time, when I was glued to CSPAN coverage of the U.N. Security Council meetings when Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei reported their work was not completed. Reported they were not finding any significant support for the Bush Administration’s claims about active WMD’s and unmanned aerial vehicles that could drop nerve gas on our allies. My "Mom radar" was on full alert and I absorbed it all. And wondered: If we were so sure Iraq had these WMD’s why didn’t we give Blix and El Baradei pinpoint instructions as to where to find them? Why didn’t your husband insist on that, Maverick that he was, Cindy?

Well, there I was, a Blue Star Mom with a son perched at that berm. I truly wanted this to be a just war, and hoped for some evidence to support our impending attack. At the same time, I was desperate for us to go in, since I knew the longer we waited, the hotter and more unhealthy the conditions for my son and his fellow military forces wearing their protective suits. I mean, they could’ve died from the excessive heat in those things... And you probably weren’t aware the news was reporting they were looking to draft, if necessary, morticians in case the casualties were that tremendous. For us early Blue Star Moms, It was a mindf***, Cindy, of the worse kind.

On the one hand, I DIDN’T WANT my son and our military to attack without provocation. On the other hand, there was this DO IT AND GET IT OVER WITH SOONER RATHER THAN LATER concern that if they waited too long, they’d be sitting ducks.

So they went. And it became all too clear early on that there were not enough troops. Your husband rightly screamed for more forces, but honestly, Cindy, for all his posturing that he’s a maverick, he’s one impotent dude! I mean, he didn’t get them any more forces, and the whole thing turned into this great giant clusterf***! If he was such a strong leader, with so much respect, why didn’t they listen to him? And when it came to Abu Ghraib, sure he spoke, said he was against torture, but he didn’t end the torture, did he? Not much of a consensus builder, I reckon. It was then that this Blue Star Mom decided John McCain was not leadership material.

Back to my Blue Star Mom story... My two sons have survived three deployments (and a pair to another dangerous territory), and believe me, Cindy, I’ve shared that worry with you of a stranger at the front door, a strange car pulling into the driveway, an unfamiliar telephone number on the caller ID, the desire to be fully alert when your son calls you during the night because it is the most precious moment of your life right then. And yes, the sending off of our troops, the trying to be brave in the face of putting our sons into harm’s way. But you haven’t yet shared the joyful returns yet, have you? I don’t think so, and believe me, that’s not to be missed either, Cindy!

Another thing you missed, though, was the anguish felt when John voted against funding our troops because there were timelines included in the funding bill number H.R. 1591. It was an emergency spending bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have added more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs. President Bush was threatening to veto the bill and "your guy" voted alongside him on that as he’s done like 90% of the time in recent years. So much for his "Maverickness."

Now, as for that vote, you and I both know it was all about the timeline issue, just as you and I both know Barack felt strongly, in his vote, about issuing a blank check without seeing an exit plan or an end in sight to this war. That’s the real difference they have on this issue of Iraq, isn’t it, Cindy? Issue a blank check to our government, our defense contractors, and the Iraqi people, without any accountability, or set limitations to what we’ll expend in money, time, and lifeblood of our forces there in Iraq.

After spending several days recently with my son’s "terp" (Iraqi Interpreter), an absolute gem of a young man from central Iraq who has put his life on the line to help secure his country’s future, I am more convinced than ever it is in the U.S.’s best interest to establish timelines and exit Iraq as Barack Obama, the Bush Administration and even Al Malaki would have us do. The interpreter, a smart young man with a university degree, acknowledged reluctantly that even though he would love nothing more than for the U.S. to remain there indefinitely, when looking at it from the U.S. perspective that is in our best interest. It is a hard choice, but it comes down to our spending billions in Iraq or fixing our own economy. It comes down to our sending our tired and weary forces back or having them enjoy more "dwell time" with their families, to be ready, healthy, and strong for the next threat to our country.

By the way, that bill your husband voted against passed in the Senate and, after being reconciled with the House (where it was approved, too), was voted on again. This time, your husband was AWOL on that vote! AWOL on a vote to provide money to the troops after first voting to oppose it!

And speaking of going AWOL on votes, Cindy, I was shocked and disheartened more recently, first when your husband joined a few others in the Senate to offer a competing 21st Century GI Benefits bill to the wildly popular non-partisan bill offered by Senator Jim Webb, the former Undersecretary of the Navy, who had years of experience in manpower issues in the DOD.

Again going along with Bush, Senator McCain opposed it, first claiming it would mean an exodus of troops from the active duty military to take advantage of it. That was a shortsighted concern since a non-partisan Congressional audit estimated it would end up attracting more and better quality forces to join the military in the long run. Then, John and a few others tried to sell a competing measure as something better since there was a transferability clause, to give these benefits to a spouse or child of the service member. It was a far cheaper bill and clearly was an effort to balance the budget on the backs of our 21st Century veterans. The transferability factor was a weak argument and they obviously took for granted the American public wouldn’t be too up on this, since those in the know realized the head of each branch of the military has the power to authorize that transferability on their own.

In the end there was plenty of support – from both sides of the aisle - to pass the Jim Webb version of the bill, the more generous one, and in the end, the transferability clause was added and everyone was happy. But what did your husband do? He went out and attended a campaign fundraiser instead of flying home to vote on the bill. He was AWOL on our sons’ GI Bill educational benefits!

Now, maybe you can afford it with your multiple houses and multiple cars, but I work hard for a living and my sons stepped up to serve in large part for the educational benefits (which had been greatly diminished in recent years since tuition rates skyrocketed), so John’s absence was disrespectful to my sons’ and so many other post 9/11 GIs’ service, do you see? I guess you could say he put his campaign first, instead of country first.

A word of advice, Cindy. Before you go around knocking Senator Obama on his vote again, why don’t you ask your husband to explain to those of us who do not want to cede our national security, our national treasury to Iraq why he voted against funding our troops last year? And why he refuses to support our veterans? You haven’t gotten that far in "Blue Star Momhood" to worry about what happens when they return from war, who will care for your son and our other veterans after the war is over, but I sure do. And frankly, your husband’s record sucks when it comes to vets. I wonder why that is, and why he never once has felt it important to serve on the Veterans Affairs Committee in all his years in Congress?

In closing, my fellow Blue Star Mom, "tomato/tomahto," but I’d suggest you not throw any more stones from one of your glass houses. And be ready for that touching welcome home reunion too, Cindy! I pray your son (and Sarah’s) return in one piece, healthy and whole. But listen, once you get past that glory reunion "honeymoon", let’s have another chat, shall we?

Tell the Truth about the Troop Surge in Iraq

Paul from Cave Creek, AZ — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:53:14 EDT

While the Bush Administration, Republicans and most of the media would have us believe that the troop surge in Iraq has worked and is working, nothing could be further from the truth.

The main reason there has been a reduction in violence and killings is simply because the U.S. is paying the Suni's not to fight. To add insult to injury of the $2.7 trillion already spent on this misguided invasion, we are paying billions to Iraqi's not to fight. That's the strategy that is working , not the surge.

I am amazed that so many people in this country are not aware of this fact.

I am more amazed that almost as many have forgotten that our compelling reason to invade Iraq was because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction which everyone, including Bush, now agrees was not the case.

We owe the people of Iraq one big huge apology and we need to withdraw for Iraq as soon as possible.

Why We Need Change

Marion B — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:36:17 EDT

Why we need change, desperately. Listed below are just a few of the very negative consequences we Americans are facing because of the current administration’s policies.

· Wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama woman, won a wage discrimination suit at state level, but the federal courts reversed, even though the wage discrimination was ongoing at the time she filed her complaint. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find that she did not suffer wage discrimination. The USSC reversed because she did not file suit within six months of the first instance of discrimination – never mind that she did not know of the discrimination for nearly 20 years and, when she did learn of the discrimination, she reported it in a timely fashion. Here’s the case: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf

· Erosion of the Fourth Amendment [see, e.g., Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), links at www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_923/]. The current administration’s activities in spying on U.S. citizens is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. [See the Brandon Mayfield case, discussed at http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/9090373de4fa9c7d85256f3300551e42?OpenDocument]. Notably, the Oregon and New York federal courts have ruled that key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which allowed for this spying, are unconstitutional because they allow "the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.". [See, www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27patriot.htm; www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/09/judge_rules_provisions_of_patr.html]. Whether the USSC will uphold these decisions is unclear, given the current court’s holdings in other cases, such as Caballes.

· The wrongful invasion of Iraq, premised as it was on falsehoods [see http://www.factcheck.org/search/, and type in key words “Iraq invasion”], and which has cost thousands and thousands of lives – of our own troops as well as innocent Iraqi citizens, and which is costing our nation an estimated $12.5 billion a month. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html]

· The current administration’s fiscal policies, which not only squandered a $127 billion budget surplus [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGqLx61MRY6w], but has led us into a near-record deficit of $407 billion this year. [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deficit10-2008sep10,0,4004735.story]. Then there is the administration’s desire to redesign Social Security [“individuals born in 1950 or later, would have a "voluntary opportunity" to participate in personal accounts. . . . a publicly administered program currently available to U.S. federal government employees, . . . [in which] are given a choice of five funds -- large cap stock fund, small cap stock fund, an international stock fund, a corporate bond fund, and U.S. Treasury bonds fund.” All of these would have been managed by government overseers – the same people, one presumes, who have been managing the nation into the current financial crisis?] Here’s a State Dept link with the transcript of the proposal: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/20050202233417aawajuk0.7545587.html]

With Us or Agin' Us

Emily from El Cerrito, CA — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:30:58 EDT

Cross Posted at <a href="http://emilyduffyart.blogspot.com/">Elephant in the Room</a> (Go there for larger views of images if you wish.)

I'm an artist first and a political blogger second. Sometimes, especially in the past eight years (youknowwhy) I've had to put my art second, behind my activism, which I don't like to do. Other times having art-making as an expressive outlet has probably kept my head from exploding. Like you poll wonks, and policy writers I'm using my personal skills to help win our country back. Art is a less represented method of activism here on DailyKos but there are many artists among our community.

I'd like to share with you the first in a series of sculptures I've been working on since 2003. The actual artwork will be on <a href="http://www.artofdemocracy.org/galleries/west/gallery_joshua_tree.html">exhibit</a> in October (near one of the nation's largest Marine bases) but since most of you won't be able to get to Joshua Tree, CA to see it, I'm sharing it online now. I'm hoping it will help change votes, minds, hearts, and inspire progressive action and CHANGE/HOPE/PROGRESS!

Comments on Obama's Senate speech on the Bailout Bill

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:36:18 EDT

If you're an Obama supporter, as I have been for the last two years, this post may bother you. On the other hand, you may have perceived many of the same ideas while listening to Obama address the Senate yesterday, concerning the bailout bill.

Frankly, I was very disappointed with Obama's support of the bill. I was even more disappointed with his speech! To my ears, Obama used a rusty formulaic structure for his speech, with an unusual amount of fear and guilt lathered on the American people.

From the beginning of the speech, he was talking about blame for the state of the economy - but he didn't mention the Iraq War, outsourcing of jobs, or the plummeting employment rate. He used an analogy of putting out a fire now (by passing this bill in a hurry), but he failed to mention the other truthful part of that analogy - that some fires actually need to happen in order to destroy things so that new things can take place. Example: some of the moldy houses that Katrina visited had to be allowed to burn down, so new ones could be rebuilt. Many people have commented on the similarity between the devastation caused by Katrina, and the destruction to our economy.

Obama went on to accuse the House of failing to act. This is a blatant mischaracterization. The House DID act, just not the way Obama and others wanted it to. This is partisanship, pure and simple. I was surprised to hear Obama go there. He also connected the stock market drop to the House decision to vote down the original bailout bill. I was watching the stock market going down before the voting even started. Plus, it is simply inaccurate to attribute the activity in the stock market to anything other than investors' willingness to invest. Period. There are a multitude of reasons why investors choose to buy and sell stocks. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with what is happening at the same time in Congress.

Bottom line, Obama used fear and guilt in large doses in an attempt to persuade the American people to approve of this bailout bill created in the Senate. The bulk of his speech is chock full of talk about dire consequences, dangerous situations, threats of what will happen if we don't act now to rescue Wall Street. It was horrifying to hear him use causes near and dear, such as mortgages, car loans and college tuitions, payrolls, and bills, to convnce fellow Senators of the viability of this bailout bill. To plead the case for the bill based on a fear of a recession - that most of us already know we're in - well, that was an insult to our intelligence.

Obama also erroneously appropriated credit to the bailout bill for things that the bill simply doesn't guarantee, such as real protections for taxpayers, oversight, accountability, help for homeowners, elimination of golden parachutes, and profits or returns on our taxpayer contributions to this bill. Yes, those things are mentioned in the bill (I've read all 106 pages) - but every condition has a giant loophole for the Treasury Secretary to slide through, without any obligation to Congress, taxpayers, or anyone at all.

There are absolutely NO guarantees that the provisions of the bill will be managed correctly, that any money will be gotten back by the taxpayers, or that there will be any profits whatsoever. Obama clearly stated this in his speech. But didn't he also say previously that he would NOT support a bill that didn't have those guarantees built in?

One key item in the bill, which Obama mentioned in his speech, concerns the possibility Obama described by saying, "If we fall short, we will levy a fee on financial institutions so that they can repay us for the losses they caused." There's a clause in the bill about this, true. However, there are many more clauses in the bill, which indicate the very real possibility, even intention, that the Treasury Secretary will buy up assets and then dismantle the financial institutions. There would be no entity to "bill" a fee to, no financial institution from which to obtain reimbursement for our losses.

Another Senator has called this bailout bill "legislative blackmail."

The conclusion of Obama's speech exhorted the American people to do more to help our economy, to take more action to prevent the economic downfall we face. From this soapbox, Obama launched his familiar stump speech - blaming the runaway spending of the Bush Administration, and saying that many important programs will be delayed or abandoned, in spite of our great sacrifices.

The best line of his speech came at the very end, where he said, "...our destiny is not written for us, but by us." That rang true. Unfortunately, that truth was cloaked in thick political rhetoric, the likes of which has a real potential to derail Obama's voting base.

Biden Speaks at Son's Deployment Ceremony

Irish Musician for Progressive Solutions — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:47:50 EDT

Joe Biden Biden to Speak at Son's Deployment Ceremony

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden will speak Friday in Dover, Del., at the deployment ceremony for his 39-year-old son Beau, who is headed to Iraq as part of a unit of soldiers from the Delaware National Guard.

Biden aides said that the event was not political and that he was speaking as a father and senator. Beau Biden, who is Delaware's attorney general, is a member of the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. In a press release, National Guard officials said he might serve as an army prosecutor. He will go to Fort Bliss, Tex., for training before heading to Iraq.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was accused of politicizing the service of her 18-year-old son Track last month when she spoke at his deployment ceremony, and Biden aides have tried to avoid a similar charge. At the same time, Beau Biden introduced his father at the Democratic National Convention, and his father occasionally mentions his son's service, unlike Sen. John McCain, who has avoided discussing the experiences of his 19-year-old son Jimmy, a Marine who returned from a tour in Iraq in February.

"I'm proud, but I have to admit to you, I wish he wasn't going, I wish he wasn't going," the Delaware senator told Entertainment Tonight in an interview this week.

Biden's wife, Jill, in the same interview, said "there is a lot pride," but added, "there's not a morning that I open my eyes that I don't say a prayer that he comes home safely."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/02/biden_to_speak_at_sons_deploym.html

What it Means to be a Politician to more than the Fringes on the Left or Right

eznelson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:57:39 EDT

It is clear to me that many Americans just do not understand how politics work, what constitutes political suicide, and why pandering only to the fringes either on the left or the right is a bad way forward for this country.

For example Obama has been very clear that he opposed going into Iraq from the start. But since he was not President at the time and clearly the Republican controlled congress and Republican President thought otherwise, there isn't a lot that Obama can do to change the past. We can moan and cry and close our eyes and stamp our feet but the fact remains WE the American public did not stop the Iraq invasion when we could of. Blaming Obama for not ending the Iraq war is ridiculous. The fact is we are there now. The damage has been done and now it would be completely irresponsible to just wipe our hands of the mess we have created. So here we are, it is September 30th, 2008, and Barack has been talking about ways to wind down the war in Iraq and get our troops out in the most responsible manner both to our troops and to the Iraqi people. But of course people on the left fringe are outraged that Obama is not absolute enough in saying that we should pull out the troops ASAP and the fringes on the right are calling him a "cut and runner" and someone who doesn't support the troops and all kinds of other ridiculous talking points.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is our best chance to move the country forward but he alone can’t do anything by himself. He is only as strong as the overall public opinion is. If 80% of Americans think offshore drilling is the solution then WE are at fault for not better educating the American public as to why this is not true and is in fact harmful. It isn't the responsibility of Obama or any politician for that matter to reverse public opinion for or against a particular issue. It is Obama's job to lead and efficiently direct the bottom up groundswell that he is trying to create. Without that groundswell Obama is just another tiny voice in a sea of inconsequential politicians and fringe 3rd party candidates.

On the other hand someone like Caribou Barbie is all about placating and pandering to the fringes on the right.

Get Active and Get out the VOTE!!

Have You Seen This Fact-Check?

Lauralyn — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:12:30 EDT

September 29, 2008Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for the troops?Posted: 12:20 PM ETThe Statement:
At the first 2008 presidential debate - Friday, Sept. 26, in Oxford, Mississippi - Republican nominee Sen. John McCain repeated his campaign trail charge that Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama tried to cut off money to the military. "And Senator Obama … after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said.

Get the facts!The Facts:
On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas. He, like many Democrats, was pushing for an end to the war in Iraq, and the legislation included no provisions for that. "We must fund our troops," Obama said that day in a news release. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war." McCain, and Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, voted in favor of that resolution.Obama had supported, and voted for, an earlier version of the bill that would have provided the money for the troops but established a timeline for Bush to begin bringing them home. Biden also voted for that version of the plan. McCain was one of three senators who did not vote that day — but he urged Bush to veto it after it passed 51-46 on April 26, 2007. "I look forward to the president's prompt veto of this misguided bill," McCain said in a written statement. Bush did veto the measure on May 1, 2007, leading to the second vote.

Verdict:
Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan McCain refers to — one that McCain spoke against.

Give America Back to Her People Now - 8 Economic Solutions

Susan from Vashon, WA — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:08:49 EDT

I've created 8 economic solutions that I would like to see adopted in this legislation to solve America's financial crisis. Please contact your senators and representatives, governors, and mayors, etc. Let me know what you think:

Please consider the following suggestions to help solve the economic crisis:

1. END THE WAR IN IRAQ - Use the money saved to create emergency jobs for Americans to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through green energy expansion AND

2. IMPROVE EDUCATION THROUGH INNOVATION- setting up a cabinet position that finds new fields of study ahead of the curve, increases apprenticeships for high school, etc.

3. ESTABLISH A TRUE LIVING WAGE SCALE- rewarding corporations for providing a living wage, full health care benefits, matching retirement funds, family/wellness/sickness leave plans with healthy tax cuts.

4. REGULATE ALL MORTGAGES - PROVIDE A FIXED RATE OF 3-4% to all Americans as an emergency stimulus package, temporarily reducing our output until income catches up to expense inflation.

5. CREATE A NEW HOMESTEAD ACT - providing homes and jobs for all American's through Ameri-Corp, cleaning up America, improving our infra-structure.

6. FREEZE FORECLOSURES - get people back in homes they have lost through #5 above.

7. CREATE REGULATORY LEGISLATION from bottom up working with global economists thus allowing the American people [and eventually global workers] to earn a living wage now and in the future by eliminating possiblities for CEO's to make up to 400 times the amount of their average worker, sell risky speculative financial products that end up harming the average American, and reducing the consumer's and the country's dependence on credit.

8. BROKER A DEAL WITH AMERICA'S WEALTHIEST to buy out the failing Wall St. giants and let them govern it's recovery with their experience and new regulatory controls.

Obama aces the test

John Cavanaugh — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:43:13 EDT

By Peter S. Canellos, Boston Globe Staff

WASHINGTON - John McCain last night tried hard to make the first presidential debate a test of Barack Obama's fitness for office. McCain succeeded in his framing of the test - but Obama passed it.

In an encounter that seems destined to be remembered more for its substance than any quips or gaffes, the two candidates defended their positions stoutly, outlined clear contrasts for the voters, and showed a command of the issues that was greater than in most past presidential debates.

McCain persuasively cast himself as a government reformer committed to cutting spend ing; but Obama forcefully argued that cutting spending alone would not revitalize the economy.

McCain explained clearly why he believed "victory" in Iraq would be jeopardized by setting a timetable for withdrawal; but Obama argued strongly that a disproportionate focus on Iraq was jeopardizing success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"It was substantive, it was detailed, and, I could say, no clear winner," concluded Wayne Lesperance, political scientist at New England College. "McCain, I thought, was strong on the economic questions. And Obama more than held his own on foreign policy. It was kind of a reversal of the conventional wisdom."

But with the majority of the debate focused on foreign policy - where McCain's superiority was assumed, and Obama's vulnerability was greatest - the lack of a clear winner benefits Obama more than McCain.

Voters concerned that Obama might be too dovish to defend the country heard him promise to increase troops in Afghanistan and redouble efforts to "capture or kill" Osama bin Laden.

Voters concerned that Obama lacked a strategic knowledge of the world heard him discourse comfortably and intelligently on the complex challenges facing the United States in Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Good judgment, he suggested, was as important as experience.

"We took our eye off Afghanistan. We took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11. They are still sending out videotapes. And Senator McCain, nobody's talking about defeat in Iraq, but you know, I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision."

McCain tried repeatedly to portray Obama as a neophyte, prefacing many answers with variants of the statement, "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand," and later insisting that Obama "showed a little bit of naiveté."

But Obama didn't seem either uncomprehending or naive, and McCain seemed so frustrated at times that he almost lost his cool.

After Obama followed a McCain jab about Obama's failure to hold a hearing of his Senate subcommittee with a return punch that McCain had once claimed the United States could "muddle through" in Afghanistan, the Arizona senator clenched his teeth, flared his eyes, and seemed on the verge of losing composure.

Finally, he came out and said what he couldn't demonstrate.

"I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas," McCain insisted.

But the claim wasn't backed up by what viewers had seen for the past hour.

Earlier, when McCain was at his most vulnerable, he himself didn't give an inch.

McCain insisted that reining in government spending and preserving lower tax rates would be the best cure for the economy. Obama argued equally forcefully that what is needed is a change of philosophy, and that McCain had been a willing traveler on the Bush Adminstration's failed economic policies.

McCain would have none of it.

"It's well known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate, nor with the administration," he shot back, in one of his strongest responses of the night. "I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoners, on Guantanamo Bay, on the way the Iraq war was conducted. I have a long record, and the American people know me well."

They do. They know Obama less well. But last night, they probably came away feeling they knew him a little better - and liked what they saw.

Both candidates came off well. But Obama had more to gain, and he did.

Dem. VP Nominee Joe Biden Vows To End Iraq War

Erin from New York, NY — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:20:05 EDT

September 26, 2008 by Erin Medlicott

Greensburg, PA: Speaking to a packed house in the Greensburg Salem High School gym Thursday, Democratic VP nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) criticized the Bush Administration on its handling of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, shouting, “we will end this war.”

Introduced by NFL Hall of Famer and Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, and Norma Margonari, a local activist who comes from a large family of coal miners, Biden opened his remarks by thanking Pittsburgh for pitching in to help his family. He choked up and somberly spoke about how after his wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident, Rocky Bleier, one of the Steelers, came to his sons’ hospital room to give them footballs to cheer them up, at the request of Dan Rooney’s dad.

Biden calmed fears when he said the Obama-Biden team would guarantee to keep Social Security intact. He answered questions on health care benefits and fixing the economy - but his most crowd-rousing comments were given about the Iraq War.

His statement, “Imagine a country where we only go to war when it is absolutely necessary” brought a big round of applause.

Biden continued, “and when we do….. we go with the support of the rest of the world.” More big applause. And then, ” Ladies and gentlemen, we will end this war.” Standing ovation.

Senator Biden’s got a personal interest in six-year long war, since his family learned their oldest son, Beau, currently Delaware’s Attorney General, and a captain in the National Guard, will be deployed to Iraq next month. But he’s been blasting the Bush Administration for several years for their lack of commitment to benefits for vets returning home, including making it extremely hard to be considered “eligible” for education and health benefits once their tours of duty are over.

Last year, the senator’s bill to provide funding for MRAPs, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, paved the way for construction and distribution of these V-shaped hull tanks, directly leading to a dramatic drop in the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who were hit by roadside bombs. The bill was passed by a vote of 75-24. The one remaining vote was Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was absent in the Senate that day.

Pittsburgh has a higher than average number of residents in the U.S. military. Speaking to the veterans and their families in the crowd, Biden continued, “The only people sacrificing right now are those who have children or husbands or wives who are serving, and the families that are left behind. And we don’t mention it often enough, but we have thousands of people who have died. We have over 30,000 who have been wounded.”

He continued, “Ladies and gentlemen, we owe them. We owe them more than we can ever repay them.”

The senator stayed to answer questions (unlike his counterpart, Gov. Sarah Palin, so far…) and left to a standing ovation.

Women of the World Unite!

Beth Arnold — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:02:52 EDT

Dear Sisters (and I mean all you gals out there--no matter how old you are or what party you belong to, whether you work or stay home and care for your children, whether you live in the heart of our country or are flung on the farthest coast),

Even though we all know that women's votes have been important since we got the right to vote nationally in 1920, this year it's suddenly news, spin, or at least a media cycle--that women matter. Our votes matter. Didn't we matter before? Let's just say this year women have become extremely visible, and politicians in both parties and of both sexes have worked the female demographic particularly--Hillary when she finally embraced her womanhood after she discovered that by doing so she could lay claim to a sizable segment of women voters, and McCain after Hillary lost to Obama. Some of Hillary's supporters were fit to be tied and McCain wanted them to think that as their "man" he could be tied into pro-woman submission. McCain took his opportunity since these women had been encouraged to rage against Obama, who was actually the one with real credibility for being on the side of American females.

Cost of Iraq War to Duluth

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:29:27 EDT

Perhaps the most noteworthy detail coming from the government bailout of Wall Street is that taxpayers may be on the hook for 700 billion dollars, tens of billions of which will undoubtedly come from the pockets of Minnesotans.

What is less at the forefront of the debate is how the War in Iraq has and will continue to complicate the financial health of the US in the future if and when this bailout is implemented. The War has not only served as a terrible drain on our soldiers and military families, but also as a drain on our treasury.

Minnesota State Auditor Rebecca Otto and Duluth Mayor Don Ness announced the findings of the non-partisan National Priorities Project report: that Minnesota alone has committed $15.8 billion dollars to pay for the Iraq War.

For the same amount of money, Minnesota could have funded one of the following priorities:

4,532,602 People with Health Care for One Year
18,086,082 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year
345,631 Public Safety Officers for One year
247,938 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year
1,717,699 Scholarships for University Students for One Year
100,619 Affordable Housing Units
5,225,329 Children with Health Care for One Year
2,285,863 Head Start Places for Children for One Year
270,034 Elementary School Teachers for One Year

Otto went even further, breaking down the numbers for Duluth specifically, which has committed $199.5 million to the Iraq War:

57,398 People with Health Care for One Year
229,030 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year
4,377 Public Safety Officers for One year
3,140 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year
21,752 Scholarships for University Students for One Year
1,274 Affordable Housing Units
66,170 Children with Health Care for One Year
28,947 Head Start Places for Children for One Year
3,420 Elementary School Teachers for One Year

Mayor Ness tied the War on Iraq to problems facing everyday Minnesotans:

This is what happens with a Republican Administration. You get an energy policy written by oil lobbyists, and the end result is four-dollar-a-gallon gas. It’s time for a change.

State Auditor Rebecca Otto added:

We’re already seeing less federal revenue coming into state and local governments. According to the GAO, this problem is only going to get worse. And, as a result, you’re going to see property taxes go up.

The Bush Administration has devoted too much of Minnesota’s vital resources to a war that should have never been waged. In doing so, they have weakened our nation’s ability to provide healthcare, renewable energy, and quality education to every single American.

Barack Obama will end the war 16 months after coming into office and reinvest the money saved back into infrastructure, education, and middle class tax cuts.

John McCain would commit us to Iraq for a hundred years if need be, and now we know exactly where that money will come from.

--Compiled by David Jonas, Minnesota Political Assistant

How the Iraq War shape the Economy

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:18:29 EDT

Without an iota of doubt it is no lie that the USA economy has suffered greatly as a sequel to the over emphasis of the incumbent administration on perpetuating its campaign of war against terror and unfortunately missing the real threat and instead engaging in the war in Iraq that fundamentally does not have any logical bearing with the fight against Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network.

For close to eight years this administration in spite of logical argument about its orchestrated and at times conflicting report about the necessity of the war in Iraq has remained adamant and rebellious to call by well meaning Americans that the war should come to an end and the country should as a matter of fact concentrate its effort in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq amount to about tens of millions of dollars per month!

During this time frame many of the notable and world leading financial institutions on Wall Street have capitalized in the government ineptitude and incompetence in monitoring the situation in Iraq to also perpetuate the kind of financial recklessness that is second to none in the history of the country.

Foriegn Buyers of Foreclosed Homes

True Star Wars Inheritor — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:23:07 EDT

We, the United States Citizens are paying for the Iraqi War in more than 1 way.

1> During the Iraq War the current Administration allowed, and promoted these Adjustable Rate Mortgages....by turning a blind eye. PRIOR TO 2006 THESE ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES WERE ABOUT 6% OF TOTAL MORTGAGES, IN THE YEAR OF 2007 THESE ARMS WERE OVER 25% OF TOTAL MORTGAGES.

2> Now the Administration wants to "Buy" these non-liquid loans (Foreclosed, or soon-to-be Foreclosed properties)

3> Overseas Financial Markets... awash in dollars, are lining up at the sales counter to receive these undervalued properties at a substantial discount. Our current Administration is looking to sell these and create a "bubble" of a balancing effect on the budget, BY BRINGING BACK THE DOLLARS THAT HAVE GONE OVERSEAS FOR OIL & OUR TOYS FROM CHINA. ALL WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS USED TO DO THIS.

4> BY TAKING POSSESSION OF THESE FORECLOSURES THE US GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT TO SELL THESE ASSETS TO FOREIGN ACCOUNTS.

5> THROUGHTOUT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION LAWS AND IDEALS HAVE BEEN BENT TOWARDS THE OIL AND AUTO INDUSTRY TO GO BACKWARDS....LESS MPG. WE ARE NOW THE FOLLOWERS, NOT THE LEADERS.

6> WE (THE USA) ARE THE INVENTORS OF SOLAR POWER, BUT CURRENTLY WE ARE 4TH BEHIND JAPAN, GERMANY, CHINA IN PRODUCTION, AND 3RD IN INSTALLS BEHIND GERMANY, AND JAPAN.

WHY, WHEN WE ARE THE INVENTORS OF SOLAR POWER, ARE WE BECOMING SOLD SHORT? IT CRIPPLES OUR ECONOMY TO CONTINUE TO MAKE WAR WITHOUT HONEST REPRESENTATION...JUST TO KEEP WORKING OURSELVES BACKWARDS TOWARDS AN OIL DEPENDENT FUEL FUTURE.

All of civilization has looked to the USA for the answers to the problems of the world....and we are failing them. No wonder they desire to take over our financial structure.... they will direct the changes needed soon ~ if we do not take hold of our ability to bring about the changes that will lead the world out of the problems at issue today~ environmental degredation, species extinction, global warming and the insuing paterns of natural disasters.

We need only look to our truly imaginative inventors....true leaders:

www.aptera.com

www.teslamotors.com

all the individual solar and wind generation companies,

and the individuals installing these generation plants.

From Daily Iowan, NY Grannies, Texan, and New Mexican Praise U of Iowa McCain/Palin Rally Interrupters

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:10:11 EDT

Commendations from grannies

Wonderful news. We grandmothers in the peace movement wondered when the youth of America would wake up and start protesting the war in Iraq, as we have been doing for five years. We are thrilled to read about the admirable students at the UI who protested not only John McCain's war mind set but Palin's anti-women beliefs and policies. Keep it up, kids. We grannies aren't getting any younger, and we earnestly hope you'll continue our struggle for peace and justice after we're gone.

Joan Wile
founder-director, Grandmothers Against the War
New York City

Protesters lauded

During a McCain/Palin speech, UI students Megan Felt, Hannah Rounds, Laura Kacere, Marni Steadham, Robin Berman, Dan Rathjen, David Goodner, Justin Feinstein, Brooke Bachelder, Lara Elborno, Naomi Prager, and Anthony Carter used their constitutional right of free speech to bring attention to the fact that this pair does not speak for many Americans. The students deserve our respect for their courage.

In recent days, I have felt frightened for our nation and worried that young people might not be paying attention (despite Barack Obama's great gains in getting them to become interested in politics). These students make me proud. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi taught this very tactic - nonviolently opposing oppression. As we said in the old days, "Right on."

Tomi Phillips
The Woodlands, Texas

And again

These University of Iowa students (Megan Felt, Hannah Rounds, Laura Kacere, Marni Steadham, Robin Berman, Dan Rathjen, David Goodner, Justin Feinstein, Brooke Bachelder, Lara Elborno, Naomi Prager, and Anthony Carter) deserve our commendation for their Gandhian intelligence and courage in doing what they did in interrupting the McCain/Palin rally with key questions, as reported on CNN. They are telling Americans that young people will not accept four more years of more Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Blackwater policies and no more killing of innocent people, bystanders, and children in either Iraq or Afghanistan, which is becoming an international scourge for the USA. They remind me of the best of the Vietnam War protesters, as well as the heroic actions of M.K. Gandhi himself, whose work I have studied for 30 years.

Stephen Fox

Santa Fe, N.M.

THE VALUE OF WORDS

Athena — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:09:07 EDT

I have watched this campaign with interest, new words have been coined to explain behaviors, economic conditions and other pertinent issues.

My concern is the phrase "flip flopping" in this campaign.

McCain has made statements such as,"we are all Georgians" and "the economy is fundamentally sound".

These are not statements that he has really flip flopped on, these are statements made in ignorance of the facts, which are later corrected.

In this time of uncertainty , both with the economy and with our relations with other countries , we simply cannot afford a president that makes statements that have to continually be retracted or otherwise "clarified" - this is not flip flopping on issues, these are , what I would call, rushing to judgement.

It would be a fatal political mistake to have a president that makes hurried , thoughtless statements before the facts are clear in a situation.

It is imperative we not elect McCain, not only because he is part of the republican party, which has been controlling the United States for the last 8 years, but because his "rush to judgement" in situations is a dangerously unsound principle.

The idea that he would criticise Mr. Obama for not having a handy and flippant decision is absurd and needs to be pointed out , not only in Mr Obama's speeches, but would be an effective realisation for television ads.

Do we need a president that makes a rush to judgement? absolutely not! McCain's speeches and statements are dangerous and the kind of talk that creates wars.

Why won't McCain Support our Veterans?

Joyce D. — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:44:00 EDT

Barack Obama supports our soldiers abroad and believes that our support should continue once they return home as well.

Barack Obama supports the New GI Bill.

McCain refused to co-sponsor the bill.

Veterans Deserve Better (link)!

SEATTLE TIMES ENDORSES OBAMA: As president, Barack Obama can get America moving forward again.

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:01:38 EDT

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008190671_obamaed21.html

Friday, September 19, 2008

Barack Obama

An economic Katrina is shattering the confidence of hardworking, middle-class Americans. The war that should never have been in Iraq is dragging on too long. At a time of huge challenge, the candidate with the intelligence, temperament and judgment to lead our nation to a better place is Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama should be the next president of the United States because he is the most qualified change agent. Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

As our country lurches from one financial or energy crisis to the next, American taxpayers remain burdened with the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- to the tune of $12 billion a month.

Consider the banking and financial morass. Neither Obama nor his opponent, Sen. John McCain, offers a perfect solution. But McCain is all over the map, veering from statements such as "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" to the more obvious "Wall Street is threatened by greed."

McCain is at heart a deregulator. But it is the hands-off and ineffective federal regulatory system that allowed this mess to fester. Obama offered a more coherent approach months ago when he called for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds and streamlining overlapping regulatory agencies.

Our country is on the wrong track. Average, middle-class citizens have lost confidence that if they work hard, they can improve their lives, afford to send their kids to college and not be tossed out of their homes.

American optimism has been wracked by President George Bush and a previous Republican Congress. If you want change, you do not keep what is essentially the same team in power. You try something different. You vote for the stronger matchup, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, a smart and steady hand on foreign policy and other matters.

On the issues:

• The economy: The Good Ship America is listing in turbulent waters. Sinking mortgage and banking institutions are wreaking havoc at home and abroad. The problem is in the private sector, but it has been made worse by a federal policy favoring big corporations. The Bush administration has not regulated these companies effectively or done what it takes to curb their wants.

Obama understands this better than McCain and makes clear he would do more to correct it. Obama's assistance to the middle class in the form of tax cuts and college-tuition breaks is a centerpiece of his campaign.

• Energy: The energy crisis is zapping our economic well-being. What does McCain want to do? "Drill, baby, drill," to quote the mindless chant at the Republican National Convention. That is not an energy policy. It is a cheap, shortsighted slogan.

Obama has a coherent plan that includes some drilling, as a stopgap, but he looks to a mix of renewable resources. He is more likely to move America off its dependence on foreign oil. McCain has been in office for 26 years and done little to change this dynamic.

• The Iraq war: Many Americans will cast their vote on this one issue alone. Past performance is the best indicator of future conduct. Obama opposed the war, McCain supported it full-bore. Obama has a plan for moving the troops out; McCain seeks "victory," whatever that actually means. The net effect will be more time and money wasted in a country that did not participate in 9/11.

Afghanistan harbors the key culprits, and the situation there is worse than it has been in eight years. Afghanistan is where our bigger effort should be, as Obama has articulated.

• Education: Obama is more practical than ideological on education. He wants merit pay for good teachers and extra training or firing for lousy ones. He wants to double federal funding for charter schools, but not in a way that cuts into the heart of public schools. Obama recently gave a major speech on education. McCain is too low-key on an important issue.

On numerous other issues, from media consolidation to health care, Obama has the stronger take. He makes up for a thin résumé with integrity, judgment and fresh ideas. Obama can get America moving forward again.

Iowa University Students Interrupt McCain/Palin Rally, so Please Use this in Letters to Editors in Iowa to help Obama Win Iowa!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:53:43 EDT

This just in, via Obama Rapid Response Team:

Dozens of students from the University of Iowa were kicked-out of the McCain-Palin rally for speaking out for peace and justice and against four more years of the same unacceptable policies of George Bush.

Activists from the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and the University of Iowa Anti-war Committee engaged in a steady stream of "rolling disruptions" to advocate for peace and justice and highlight their discontent with McSame's pro-Bush policies.

It should be noted that heckling is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. During Palin's rally a group of UI female students (including Megan Felt, Hannah Rounds, Laura Kacere, and Marni Steadham) advocated for women's rights, which are being seriously threatened by the outdated policies of McCain and Palin.

They chanted "our body, our choice", "equal pay for equal work", and "Palin, Palin get off our back, women's rights are under attack!" They also held up a large banner reading "War is menstruation envy!" Following this protest these women were escorted out by the local law enforcement. Shortly after, a second group of protesters (including UI students Robin Berman, Dan Rathjen, and David Goodner) called Palin and McCain out when they blatantly lied to the crowd about the current economic crisis.

In particular, Palin and McCain promised to reform our economy, even though their economic policies are no different than the current administration. These protesters were also escorted out. Toward the end of the speech McCain talked about his pro-war viewpoint. At the same time, UI graduate student, Justin Feinstein, screamed out, "John McCain, you never learn! We lost in 'Nam! We lost in Iraq! You can never win in war!"

The third wave of students (including Feinstein, Brooke Bachelder, Lara Elborno, Naomi Prager, and Anthony Carter) began loudly chanting, "Bring 'em back, from Iraq", "No justice, no peace, U.S. out of the Middle East", "Wars, wars, that's his name, 100 more years with John McCain", and "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."

All protesters were escorted out peacefully and their demonstration isa testament to the 1st amendment rights given to every US citizen. The protesters encourage all people to exercise their right to freedomof speech.

----------------------

Note from Stephen Fox: I think these students (Megan Felt, Hannah Rounds, Laura Kacere, Marni Steadham, Robin Berman, Dan Rathjen, David Goodner, Justin Feinstein, Brooke Bachelder, Lara Elborno, Naomi Prager, and Anthony Carter) deserve our commendation for their Gandhian courage and their intelligence to do what they did.

This could be in the form of letters to the editor of

1. Daily Iowan, the University Paper (diopletters@gmail.com)

2. Iowa City Press Citizen (opinion@press-citizen.com)

3. Des Moines Register (letters@dmreg.com)

4. Cedar Rapids Gazette (news@gazettecommunications.com)

plus five more listed at: http://www.usnpl.com/ianews.php (this is a "Live Blue" list of Newspapers in Iowa)

McCain stated: "The chairman of the FCC serves at the appointment of the President, and in my view has betrayed the public trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."

[He meant to say FEC, but that's ok, he's getting old and makes mistakes, like picking gun totin' mooseburger-eatin' dimwitted dingbat Governesses of Alaska out of National Enquirer, and McCain's wife expects us to believe that because from Little Diomede Island Alaska you can see Russia, that therefore Sarah Palin can therefore negotiate with Vladimir Putin ---note from Stephen Fox.....]

We Need More of This

signsSansSignifieds — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:38:11 EDT

Take a look at this new Obama ad:

New Obama Ad: Honor

and this:

How to Clown GOP Hacks, Lesson 1

We need a lot more like this.

Senator McCains lackluster voting record on veterans issues

Stan — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:03:02 EDT

Senator McCain has always garnered a strong sense of respect within the military community. His service and fortitude to the country and while being held in enemy captivity for five years is honorable, commendable and an incredible story of the human spirit. However, the Senators voting record on veterans issues is a sorry display of little commendable action and a sense of the attitude of be all, end all on the subject of veterans issues. Through the years of 2003 to 2007 Senator McCains performance in voting for increased funding to the VA has been, in my opinion, inexcusable. Just a small example of Senator McCains voting record according to Veterans for Common Sense.org:

March 2006: Senator McCain voted against increasing veterans medical services by 1.5 BILLION dollars in fiscal year 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote AGAINST $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

These are his most recent voting stats although, as stated before, they go back aways, all pretty much resembling one another. This is also not stating the fact that the Senator has missed numerous votes in the senate on the Iraq war, mostly for funding to provide troops w/ more down time between deployments and better equipment. And his refusal to allow a timetable of withdrawal to be set for eventual pull out of Iraq.
Recently Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America graded Senator Obamas and Senator McCains performance in VA voting, Senator Obama pulled away with a B, while a combat vet that went through unimaginable pain during his captivity in Vietnam, was given a D. Surprise? Obviously not.

Senator Salazar and Colorado veterans share their support for Barack

Jenn Prosser — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:06:25 EDT

Roughly ten percent of Coloradans have served in the military, making Barack's experience as a member of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee an important qualification for Coloradan voters. Last week, about two dozen of those men and women came to the Colorado Campaign for Change office in Colorado Springs for a veteran to veteran phone bank.

They reached out to other veterans in El Paso county by calling them and talking about why they are supporting Barack.

Dave, an Air Force veteran who served in Vietnam, told us about the evening.

He said:

I think it's a really nice sign of the vets getting involved in the Obama campaign, how the military is reacting to this whole episode, I think everybody is ready for a change.

Senator Ken Salazar visited the event, thanking the veterans for their service to the country and for helping to get Barack elected.

After speaking to the vets, he joined them in making phone calls.

How do we end this WAR?

Marianne — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:08:03 EDT

Level with us! What's it going to take to get out of Iraq? And what are the true consequences that we can expect from whatever action we take?

I haven't heard anyone speak about the war in detail in almost a year! Why isn't anyone bringing it up?

Marianne

How Ms. Palin compares? Is America failing to think clearly?

vivianag — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:17:18 EDT

For Ms Palin to compare herself with the woman that made 18M cracks in the ceiling is a bit of a stretch. Isn't somehow arrogant to think that the challenges of a moose hunting, hockey mom, with a so called 'barracuda' style, that got to be a governor of Alaska, the 47th state in population, can be compared with Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton, the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. an accomplished attorney from Yale, named one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America, that got to be the 'first lady of America for 8 years'? Aren't we supposed to give certain values to those accomplishments? Is education something to laugh about? Are the challenges seriously comparable? Has Ms. Palin ever done community service that she compares it with being the major of a town? Does she know that community organizing is one of the most engaging, selfless, educating experiences a person can have? An experience that teaches a person to understand, motivate, guide, empower, engage others, obtain results. Does Ms Palin think that community organizers obtain results by being a boss or by engaging? Isn't that a substantially different kind of experience that requires a different kind of talents? How does she dare to minimize an activity she, obviously, doesn't know much about. Are we failing to define clearly the talents required from our leaders? Are her statements something we should overlook so no to be called sexist? Are we supposed to follow the new drum of the Republican Party without questioning? The same way we all followed the Republican Party to the Iraq War? ... With some exceptions!Is America going to fall in love again with the guy/gal that "is like us and we can drink beer with"? Are we going to ask about the unhappy people Ms Palin appears to have left in Alaska? Are we going to shut them up or ask some questions? Are we going to ask about her connections to the oil industry or the oil lobby? Are we again going to choose emotionally and be followers ... to discover, when we wake up 3 years later, that we are in a deep hole? Will we be falling pray to the barracuda in the end?Is the press to fall again into the blaming and the threats they already submitted to? That time when they stopped asking the questions and started singing the same drum beat? War, War, War! Silence has many consequences and one of them is that we get to live with them for 8 years and beyond.A friend from Kansas that now works in Hong Kong send me an email today saying: "I heard you are an Obama supporter, and I'd like to listen to why you believe in him. I'm a disappointed Hillary fan, who definitely doesn't want to vote for McCain. Palin is an insult."Does Ms Palin really think she will get the Hillary votes? Or who is she attempting to get to believe it? No Way, No How, No McCain-Palin is the answer.

A Veteran's Daughter- Thoughts On The RNC, Voting, Heroes, Veterans Rights, & Patriotism

soldiersdaughter — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:46:08 EDT

As a daughter of a disabled Vietnam Veteran, I saw my father suffer for years with appalling medical and mental health care- despite how we tried to fight for his care, he recently died an untimely death under the care of the VA Hospital system. I have seen so many veterans and their families suffering in the VA system. I am disgusted with what is being promoted as Patriotic and Country First! PLEASE PEOPLE WAKE UP and VOTE FOR CHANGE. WE cannot have another whole generation of veterans be treated how Vietnam Veterans where and are still being treated.

I am sick and tired of seeing the McCain and his supporter say they are patriotic and flashing scenes of John McCain as a POW. On Tuesday at the RNC, Thompson went on and on with images, and details of McCain's captivity and how his arms had balls as big as basketballs. The constant life story of this POW experience does absolutely ZERO to help troops at war, soldiers, or veterans. Do they really think he is the only one who suffered or came home a hero from the Vietnam War?

(*added edit: I find it hard to believe but after I wrote the above sentence I found out that McCain's daughter is in a video saying," My father's obviously a famous war hero. NO ONE knows what war is like other than MY family, period." video here )

To top it off and show 'how out of touch' this party is with the real world the excessive retelling and videos that they are using re-traumatizes many veterans and makes their lives a hellish nightmare, does anyone really care about that fact?

Senator McCain has not voted in ways that shows support for soldiers or veterans. He has a poor rating from several veterans organizations(see resources below). He also prefers to keep sending troops back to combat mission in stop loss (see movie http://www.stoplossmovie.com) which increase the suffering of military families with redeployments and boosts the chances that the soldiers will come home with mental health issues, some which are never healed. Barack Obama voted to YES to limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

Obama has fought for soldier and veterans rights and is working to find ways to improve their health care. Obama voted for the NEW GI BILL, The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, for increased mental health care for returning soldiers with ptsd and traumatic brain injury, McCain did not vote to support soldiers in these ways.

Veterans who are in VA hospitals have been denied access to register to vote, how patriotic is that? This is a serious misjustice- THE VA has banned voter drives at VAs. Disabled veterans are being denied assistance in voting. Read more here info on how to contact politicians to say it not ok to deny veterans in VA hospitals voting rights and more here Veteran Affairs Department Won't Help Ex-Soldiers Register to Vote

Furthermore, our present government is treating soldiers who have combat related mental illness by sending them back to the field while on psychiatric medications. "When it comes to fighting wars, though, troops have historically been barred from using such drugs in combat." says Time magazine, not so anymore- soldiers who have symptoms are given pills and send back out. Iraq war Soldiers have mental illness, medication, and suicide rates that are alarmingly high. Read more here Time article: America's Medicated Army

Mccain and Palin etc... whose sons are now serving in Iraq, are still out of touch and have no idea what is like for enlisted soldier or their families. Mccain had 'top of the line' rehab services, a luxury not many injured soldiers do not get. Most families would not even decent medical care and certainly not have access to top the line treatment when their son or daughter comes home with a traumatic brain injury or other illness. in additon families are put in a position to drive miles to the VA to see their injured soldiers, often losing their jobs while trying to be there at the hospital with their wounded soldier. Veterans I saw wait on average of 3 hours to pick up their prescripitions- I doubt that would be the case for their sons. I also saw veterans die in the VA while waiting over two months for the VA to 'find time' to start their chemotherapy, cancelled appointment are the norm, veterans being discriminated against or riduled at by staff due to their 'war related' mental illness, staff are not trained and are often ignorant about illness combat veterans face. Sadly, I saw many others who died to suicide due to lack of decent mental health care- the VA is underfunded to cope with returning troops, too busy, and over run to care for soldiers.
Please don't vote for more of McSame- Palin

Because if your last name is Palin or McCain your soldier children will not have to wait for care, be denied care, given substandard care, or find themselves homeless on the streets due to their war related disability. It is far too easy for people, who because of their political position tonot be in touch with the REAL story of soldiers families. I say this as a Vietnam veteran soldier's daughter who lived it. The life I grew up in, a father with ptsd, a family stuggling and trying to fight for decent care for their own father, and so many other families I saw who suffer everyday of their lives, by being poorly treated in the failed system like my Dad. Most of the families I know are Vietnam Veterans, but I also got know many WW2 veterans, Iraq war Veterans and their families who are not getting the heros treatment by the system. We failed Vietnam Veterans in many ways that is not 'patriotic' or exusable and now we are doing to the same to Iraq veterans, but we have chance to vote for change! Please think about so that more soldiers and their families will not suffer the life my father did and so many other veterans do everyday.

It is easy for politicians to start wars and parade 'hero stories' and giant screen with American flags on TV, say they are "patriotic" and support the troops, but I have not seen the action to support it. Soldiers are dying in IRAQ and soldiers are dying in failed VA system. I would rather see movies about what is being done to help soldiers rather than old movies of Mccain as POW. As a disabled veterans' daughter I take great insult by seeing images of a National Veterans Cemetary be used during the RNC, and POW this footage time and time again, not to mention how this would trigger my father's ptsd symptoms, as it does also to many veterans.

The soldiers who come home to live in a failed system, are failed by the care at the VA for their whole lives and the families who live with this everyday are the real patriotic heroes. But, they are not EVER done with their mistreatment, the nightmare, or the war in 5 years. The real heroes are these men and families, but you never see their life stories on tv.

I am shocked that Americans would even consider voting for anyone who has not voted to support veterans and their families by a track record of voting NO to funding for traumatic brain injured soldiers, mental health care, suicide prevention, and a decent GI Bill to go college, which some of the negative actions of this kind of 'patriotism'. Rather than see photos of McCain as a pow for the millionth, it would be patriotic to show a movie showing the faces of the veterans who are homeless and what these "patriotic people" are doing to help them. One of every three people who are homeless on America's streets are veterans! More info about homeless American Veterans here It is all words at the RNC, as it has been for years. It is the soldiers and their families who suffer when we vote for this brand of shallow patriotism.

How can people be tricked into thinking this is 'patriotic' or Country First to vote for more of this? The real heroes are the veterans and families who survive the negligent VA system, look out for one another, and all the old time veterans who tell me everyday that they don't want the Iraq war soldiers to come to a life like they had to live. True heroes are everyday people and 'some' politicians who take action to support the troops, work to end the war, bring the troops home, vote for veterans issues, take a stand for veterans rights, and work to improve the funding, and treatment for veterans.

Actions show more than words how patriotic we truly are and how we appreciate and respect all the soldiers and veterans:

McCain voted AGAINST the Webb G.I. Bill. Obama voted FOR the bill. 5/2008

McCain voted AGAINST bill to minimize periods of time between deployment of units sent to Iraq. Obama voted FOR the bill. 9/2007

McCain voted AGAINST $430,000,000 to VA for Medical Services. Obama voted FOR the bill. 4/2006

McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet medical services $1.5 billion in FY2007. Obama voted to INCREASE funding for vet medical services.3/2006

McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet-medical care by $1.8 billion. 3/2004

McCain voted to TABLE an amendment for $322,000,000 for safety equipment for USforces. "Table" means the vote never hits the floor. 10/2003 Voting on veterans issues source

If people are fooled again by this charade of patriotism and vote for more of this so many more soldiers and families will suffer like they have while president Bush was in office. I don't trust anyone to be in office and claim to support our wounded warriors when they consistently fail to vote for legislation that will actually help soldiers or veterans, wave their flag, 'pray for troops' but won't give decent benefits or health care to soldiers or disabled veterans (Think Walter Reed Scandal- most VA's I have seen have same issues as that hospital).

Please think about who you are voting for and don't let this kind of flag waving patriotism with no action for the troops or veterans fool you or other young soldiers will die and suffer with substandard care like Vietnam Veterans, and many Iraq war veterans and their families live with everyday. The Vietnam War NEVER ended for my family, my father was not given the care that McCain got when he got home from Vietnam and I speak in the hopes that my story will help people to vote in election 08 for the candidate who really does support veterans with their actions.

In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D. In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Obama a grade of B+. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America- IAVA has list here of the top actions for the next president. Before you vote in November, please look into how candidates have voted to support the troops and wounded veterans. I am voting for Obama- Biden!

My father lived the last 5 years life re-traumatize by the ongoing Iraq war, everyday of his life. It got him mad as wildcat and also broke his heart to see veterans being given the same 'run around' and lack of decent medical care he was given when got home from Vietnam. BUT we have a chance NOW to change this for soldiers and veterans if we vote for people who support veterans. From my perspective, as a disabled soldiers' daughter, those are the people who are truly patriotic.

I am asking for help to make your vote one that will help veterans and their families.

Feel free to use my story and spead the word to encourage others to please vote for a candidate that will help America's veterans - vote for change! Vote for Obama- Biden

"McCain's daughter wrote a book, 'My Dad, John McCain', she told NBC's Meredith Vieira."Obviously I think my father gets it more than anyone.""I have two brothers serving in the military--one that's about to redeploy to Iraq," she went on. "My father's obviously a famous war hero. NO ONE knows what war is like other than my family, period."
Well I think many military families would strongly take offense to that statement- I know I do! She really thinks ONLY her family knows about war, Period! See video of statement> http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_daughter_No_one_knows_what_0909.html

The group VoteVets is launching a toughly worded, $1.3 million ad campaign today, largely targeting veterans in Virginia.
The television spots that will appear in several Virginia television markets feature an Iraq war veteran, standing in front of his pickup truck, expressing disdain for what he says was Sen. John McCain's decision to attend a campaign fundraiser instead of casting a vote for the GI Bill. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10 ...
Link to VetVotes if you want to donate to help them air more ads like this- http://www.votevets.org/index_html

Article 'How did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let Me Count the Ways...' from VetVoice

Watch this video find out how McCain refused to meet with Iraq veterans or ackowledgetheir letter at the RNC and hear a soldier describe how tried to kill himself and was punished by his unit. He also tried to get help on Ft Stewart for months- he says, "this is not acceptable"

Iraq Veterans Against the War- At RNC Protests Video- Veterans Issues McCain

Great article and video at VetVoice Senator McCain "This is Walter Reed Hospital" John McCain may not be able to find the right Walter Reed, but we sure can. Watch this new video from Americans United for Change.

Video Vietnam Medic Veteran protest at RNC - telling protest police off. 'The administration is murdering our Iraq troops with multiple deployments.'

Video Vietnam Veterans Protest McCain at RNC

Information-Resources -Links

Troops deployed abroad give 6:1 to Obama

Vote Vets Video

Video John McCain lies when questioned about voting record by Vietnam Veteran

Watch video: McCain getting grilled on news for lack of support for veterans.

Iraq Veterans Against the War protest at RNC video

Video Why veterans do not support- will not vote for McCain

See list here: McCain's voting Record on Veterans Issues

Veterans for Common Sense - McCain's Voting Record for Veterans

McCain's veterans issues voting record McCain Gets a 'D' from Vets Group - Military Times

Barack Obama supports and works for veterans and their families:

Improve veterans' mental health treatment & PTSD benefits. (Feb 2008)

Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)

Address the deficiencies in the VA system. (Jun 2007)

The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits. (Jun 2007)

Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans. (Jun 2007)

Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare. (Mar 2007)

Veterans’ Affairs Bill Incorporates Obama Proposals to Improve Veterans’ Health Care and Benefits
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070627-veterans_affa ...

Obama Condemns Drug Trials On Veterans- "It is outrageous and unacceptable that our government would irresponsibly endanger veterans who have already sacrificed so much for our country," Obama said in a statement. "I will immediately be asking for a full and thorough investigation of how our government could yet again let down our veterans and their families who have given so much to their country, and who have paid so much for the failures of civilian leadership in Washington." http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/fishwrap/20 ...

Obama-Biden page about veterans issues: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/

VAWatchDog.com has links to topics relate to the candidates and veterans here
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/

Veterans for Obama http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/vetshome

Vet for Obama http://vetsforobama.org/

Other resources

video Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"

Bravenew Films- interview with IAVA, McCain's lack of support for GI BILL. How concerned are you concerned about McCain on Veterans issues. "McCain's got to take a Uturn"

Video of McCain -on we'll 'muddle through Afghanistan':

McCain says F*#X you video clip Fox News

McCain video temper- my dad had PTSD and he had a temper similiar to McCains and believe me 'they' would have never let my dad run for office!

Veteran's thoughts on Mccain

IAVA

Vietnam Veterans that do not support McCain for president

NEWS: soldiers donations to Obama "According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions as has Republican John McCain."

New Veterans Issues fact: McCain's newest proposal is to begin distributing VA Cards, which would serve as a voucher to receive care at private, for-profit hospitals. In essence, he is seeking to cut off the universal health care that the government has guaranteed to veterans for generations. He states that he wants to "relieve the burden on the VA from routine health care" so that the attention will be refocused to the "grievous wounds of war." The National Director of the VFW has been quoted as saying that this VA Card would "undermine the entire system.

I am just my father’s daughter speaking up for all veterans care in his memory and to maybe help other soldiers and veterans to not have to live the life he and so many veterans lived since they were in the Vietnam War.

*If my story or links are useful to encourage others to vote for change feel free to repost part or whole of it.

Latest news- updated October 8th:

Why NO McCain- Palin if you care about soldiers, veterans and the future.

Navy Blue Wife Open Letter To Cindy McCain

Cindy McCain recently said,"Let me tell you just a little something that I was not so happy about. My son, like so many others, and today like the Palin's son, have served on the front lines, helping keep peace and helping freedom for other people. I'm a blue star mom, just like Gov. Palin is. I'm proud of my sons, but let me tell you, the day that Sen. Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body."

"But Cindy, let me ask you a few things, blue star family to blue star family.
Did you get a cold chill when your husband FLAT OUT REFUSED to support the new GI Bill?

Did you get a cold chill when your husband was voting AGAINST troops' safety equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan on 3 separate occasions?

Did you feel even a cool breeze when your husband opposed mandatory downtime for our troops instead of continuing the endless swinging door of war theater tours?" Read more here Navy Blue Wife Open Letter To Cindy McCain

October 8 Latest news Palin's Soldiers and Veterans Issues - at Veterans for America

- According to a recent study by the non-partisan Veterans for America, Alaska’s Guard personnel lack adequate access to health care during or after deployments . (Veterans for America, 10/1/08.)
Many Guard families live in remote areas with no access to TRICARE providers during deployments. According to the VFA study, the state of Alaska does too little to assist these Guardsmen and their families with accessing the medical care they NEED. (Veterans for America, 10/1/08.)
- The State of Alaska gives its own employees who serve in the Guard minimal benefits, especially when compared with other states like California and New York. Alaska provides only 15 days of paid leave during deployment, instead of any differential pay during deployments. California, in comparison, provides pay differential between state employment and military salary for up to 365 days during federal or state deployments. This despite a manpower crisis in the Guard, and pleas from Guard officers for additional benefits to assist with recruiting.
- The State of Alaska’s own readiness ratings clearly show that Alaska’s Guard is not prepared and ready for a domestic contingency or combat mobilization. Each Alaska Army National Guard unit is assigned a “T-Rating” - ranging from T-1, for trained and ready, to T-4, not trained and not ready.For every quarter since FY 2005, the T-Rating for the Alaska Army National Guard as a whole has been T-4 - the LOWEST level in the system. (State of Alaska, FY2009 Governor’s Operating Budget, December 2007, p. 7.)

Enough!

Hope — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:28:53 EDT

When Barack Obama shouted "Enough!" during his acceptance speech on Thursday night, he echoed my soul. When he said, "So I've got news for you John McCain, we all put our country first," he spoke for me again.

Since I heard of Senator McCain’s vice-presidential pick, I've had the thought of a giant red stop sign on the platform of the Republican National Convention hoisted between two elephants and their chairman coming out with the following news release:

"We the members of the Republican Party - the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan - do hereby apologize to the American people for our unpatriotic deeds, acts of terror, breach of promise, and malfeasance in office. We, at this moment, suspend our run for the White House, and move by acclamation to elect Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. We shall not return to the scene until we have curbed our arrogance and conceded to truth, justice, and the American way. We also agree to pay down five trillion dollars of our national debt from our personal and corporate fortunes gained through misconduct and to provide for the families of the dead and wounded soldiers of the Iraq War, as though they were our own.”

Now that's a category 5 fantasy.

I have just had enough.

Vote Barak and end the Tyranny of the Baby Boomers

Charmaine from Columbia, MD — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:55:27 EDT

Let me just put this out there, because I don't fake the funk. I am crazy. But crazy like a fox. Right now I am probably the scariest woman I know. I am an intelligent black woman, a Christian militant, a drum majorette for justice and a warrior philosopher who takes no prisoners. But most importantly I am an advocate of non-violent and progressive change.

I mean what do you expect I was born on the fourth of July, with a father that was a black militant and a passionate Cavalier. But enough about me...

It is time that the Joshua Generation unites and accepts their mantle as agents of change. We can no longer be politically apathetic and allow the Baby Boomers to squander our future, just as Regan did in the 80s. We now have the unfair burden of paying for all those freaking Baby Boomers. We are not going to be able to enjoy the economic boom of the 80s or 90s simply because we have huge amounts of government and personal debt.

Credit card companies and big business exploit our financial ignorance, showing up at university campuses like drug dealers pushing high interest credit cards on us. Universities hike their tuitions increasing our education debt. By the time we leave college we have no future, because our debt is so extremely great. By the time we pay down those credit cards, student loans, pay Social Security, and state taxes, we will be about 50, if not 80 for some. But to compound the problem we get into even more debt trying to live the American dream, so we take out more loans and run up more credit card debit. We are in debt up to our eye balls so that we can pay for our house with the picket fence and 2.5 childern that need hip hop lessons, the internet, WII, piano lessons, travel soccer fees up the wazoo, etc. What the hell did the Baby Boomers do to us ? There economic policies continue to destroy our future and I for one am sick of it.

Then there is foriegn policy. I mean I am not mad about the Iraq war, it was a necessary evil. But please people, please understand that the military is not a social organization. It need not reflect civilian life because contrary to popular belief soldiers are supposed to kill and our Marines do it damn well. The United States Military is THE best in the world, because God shed His grace upon us. It is imperative that it defends the rights and freedoms that we have. It is imperative that it has our support because lets be frank most of us are afraid to break nail over a crying baby, let alone risk our lives to defend this great nation.

The war was poorly executed because of the racism that still exists in the Republican Party. They disrespected Colin Powell and listened to stupid Donald Rumsfield. Our military machine was archaic and only equipped to fight a WWII/Cold War type war. It was not equipped to fight in the urban jungles or against an enemy that hides in the shadow. Anybody who knows soccer understands that there are two kinds of strategy direct and indirect. I don't know what the heck they are teaching at West Point but they have conveniently forgotten to teach our generals about how our indirect style of warfare, helped us to defeat the British Army in the American Revolution. Basically West Point, we have become the Bristish Army with Hessian soldiers to boot. We are a formidable power who cannot fight ill equipped but revolutionary minded people, simply because we have Baby Boomers in charge who think we are still fighting freaking Russians and Germans. Diversify your leadership with minorities and immigrants who have a clue and who don't study Patton like he is God. We have alot to learn from revolutionary minded peoples from around the world, not just old white guys. Once again contrary to popular beliefs some of the greatest warriors and generals were not white people. Nzinga, Kuva, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Chez, Mao, etc. So in the immortal words of Bob Marley:

Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.

Finally, I am not saying we are a perfect nation. But everyone in the world knows when the stuff hits the fan you want an American by your side. My blue American passport is the most valuable thing in the world. It has gotten me out of some tight spots in Africa, to say the least, lol. American citizenship is valuable because Lady Liberty still stands beckoning , to all those around the world: Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry. We as citizens have an obligation regardless of our age, race, gender, sexuality, religion or class, to be stewards of Lady Liberty. We have an obligation to defend her whenever possible, pay our taxes, and most importantly to vote. Political efficacy and a strong civil society are the components of Jeffersonian Democracy and the foundation of what makes this nation great. Just as God gives us free will, so does this great nation. And for all those who live in the US of A or come to our country and dare degrade it and desecrate it, all I have to say is don't let the door hit you on the way out. But those who want to embrace the freedom and tolerance that our nation has to offer we as nation welcome you with unconditional love and open arms.

We now need to unite with one voice and say "Yes We Can". Yes we can end the tyranny of global terrorism, poverty, and all isms. Yes we can change the domination of Baby Boomers like McCain who want to continue business as usual and maintain the old boy system. Yes we can, as the largest voting block in the US make our voice heard that enough is enough it is time for a change and we will no longer allow Baby Boomers to squander our blood in the Iraqi fields and our hard earned money on poorly run mismanaged government programs. Yes we can get off our butts and put down the tv remote, get off of Facebook on November 7 Vote Barak Huessin Obama for President of the United States.

They learned from Vietnam to ban viewing of military coffins

deanne in florida — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:53:39 EDT

The picture shows several workers inside a cargo plane parked at Kuwait International Airport securing 20 flag-draped coffins for the trip back to the United States. Imperial USA president H.W. Bush. Kuwait. remember? .

The civilian cargo worker who took the photo, Tami Silicio, 50, and her husband, David Landry, are now out of work.

William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft Corporation, says the two were fired for violating "Department of Defense and company policies by working together" to take and publish the photograph.

The firing was first reported Thursday in The Seattle Times, which published the April 7 photo on Sunday.

The Seattle Times says Silicio told them she hoped the picture would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen soldiers.

WHY OUR OBAMA NEEDS TO ATTACK THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

HARLAN — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:04:01 EDT

'America's Outrageous War Economy!' Pentagon can't find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on 'national defense' By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch Last update: 7:27 p.m. EDT Aug. 18, 2008 ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Yes, America's economy is a war economy. Not a "manufacturing" economy. Not an "agricultural" economy. Nor a "service" economy. Not even a "consumer" economy. Seriously, I looked into your eyes, America, saw deep into your soul. So let's get honest and officially call it "America's Outrageous War Economy." Admit it: we secretly love our war economy. And that's the answer to Jim Grant's thought-provoking question last month in the Wall Street Journal -- "Why No Outrage?"

There really is only one answer: Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war. We love "America's Outrageous War Economy." Americans passively zone out playing video war games. We nod at 90-second news clips of Afghan war casualties and collateral damage in Georgia. We laugh at Jon Stewart's dark comedic news and Ben Stiller's new war spoof "Tropic Thunder" ... all the while silently, by default, we're cheering on our leaders as they aggressively expand "America's Outrageous War Economy," a relentless machine that needs a steady diet of war after war, feeding on itself, consuming our values, always on the edge of self-destruction.

Why else are Americans so eager and willing to surrender 54% of their tax dollars to a war machine, which consumes 47% of the world's total military budgets?
Why are there more civilian mercenaries working for no-bid private war contractors than the total number of enlisted military in Iraq (180,000 to 160,000), at an added cost to taxpayers in excess of $200 billion and climbing daily?
Why do we shake our collective heads "yes" when our commander-in-chief proudly tells us he is a "war president;" and his party's presidential candidate chants "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as if "war" is a celebrity hit song?
Why do our spineless Democrats let an incompetent, blundering executive branch hide hundreds of billions of war costs in sneaky "supplemental appropriations" that are more crooked than Enron's off-balance-sheet deals?
Why have Washington's 537 elected leaders turned the governance of the American economy over to 42,000 greedy self-interest lobbyists?
And why earlier this year did our "support-our-troops" "war president" resist a new GI Bill because, as he said, his military might quit and go to college rather than re-enlist in his war; now we continue paying the Pentagon's warriors huge $100,000-plus bonuses to re-up so they can keep expanding "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why? Because we secretly love war!

We've lost our moral compass: The contrast between today's leaders and the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 shocks our conscience. Today war greed trumps morals. During the Revolutionary War our leaders risked their lives and fortunes; many lost both. Today it's the opposite: Too often our leaders' main goal is not public service but a ticket to building a personal fortune in the new "America's Outrageous War Economy," often by simply becoming a high-priced lobbyist. Ultimately, the price of our greed may be the fulfillment of Kevin Phillips' warning in "Wealth and Democracy:" "Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out." 'National defense' a propaganda slogan selling a war economy?

But wait, you ask: Isn't our $1.4 trillion war budget essential for "national defense" and "homeland security?" Don't we have to protect ourselves? Sorry folks, but our leaders have degraded those honored principles to advertising slogans. They're little more than flag-waving excuses used by neocon war hawks to disguise the buildup of private fortunes in "America's Outrageous War Economy." America may be a ticking time bomb, but we are threatened more by enemies within than external terrorists, by ideological fanatics on the left and the right. Most of all, we are under attack by our elected leaders who are motivated more by pure greed than ideology. They terrorize us, brainwashing us into passively letting them steal our money to finance "America's Outrageous War Economy," the ultimate "black hole" of corruption and trickle-up economics. You think I'm kidding? I'm maybe too harsh? Sorry but others are far more brutal. Listen to the ideologies and realities eating at America's soul.

1. Our toxic 'war within' is threatening America's soul How powerful is the Pentagon's war machine? Trillions in dollars. But worse yet: Their mindset is now locked deep in our DNA, in our collective conscience, in America's soul. Our love of war is enshrined in the writings of neocon war hawks like Norman Podoretz, who warns the Iraq War was the launching of "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism," a reminder that we could be occupying Iraq for a hundred years. His WW IV also reminded us of the coming apocalyptic end-of-days "war of civilizations" predicted by religious leaders in both Christian and Islamic worlds two years ago. In contrast, this ideology has been challenged in works like Craig Unger's "American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America -- and Still Imperil Our Future." Unfortunately, neither threat can be dismissed as "all in our minds" nor as merely ideological rhetoric. Trillions of tax dollars are in fact being spent to keep the Pentagon war machine aggressively planning and expanding wars decades in advance, including spending billions on propaganda brainwashing naïve Americans into co-signing "America's Outrageous War Economy." Yes, they really love war, but that "love" is toxic for America's soul.

2. America's war economy financed on blank checks to greedy Read Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes' "$3 Trillion War." They show how our government's deceitful leaders are secretly hiding the real long-term costs of the Iraq War, which was originally sold to the American taxpayer with a $50 billion price tag and funded out of oil revenues. But add in all the lifetime veterans' health benefits, equipment placement costs, increased homeland security and interest on new federal debt, and suddenly taxpayers got a $3 trillion war tab!

3. America's war economy has no idea where its money goes Read Portfolio magazine's special report "The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem." The Pentagon's 2007 budget of $440 billion included $16 billion to operate and upgrade its financial system. Unfortunately "the defense department has spent billions to fix its antiquated financial systems [but] still has no idea where its money goes." And it gets worse: Back "in 2000, Defense's inspector general told Congress that his auditors stopped counting after finding $2.3 trillion in unsupported entries." Yikes, our war machine has no records for $2.3 trillion! How can we trust anything they say?

4. America's war economy is totally 'unmanageable' For decades Washington has been waving that "national defense" flag, to force the public into supporting "America's Outrageous War Economy." Read John Alic's "Trillions for Military Technology: How the Pentagon Innovates and Why It Costs So Much." A former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment staffer, he explains why weapon systems cost the Pentagon so much, "why it takes decades to get them into production even as innovation in the civilian economy becomes ever more frenetic and why some of those weapons don't work very well despite expenditures of many billions of dollars," and how "the internal politics of the armed services make weapons acquisition almost unmanageable." Yes, the Pentagon wastes trillions planning its wars well in advance. Comments? Tell us: What will it take to wake up America, get citizens, investors, anybody mad at "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why don't you rebel? Will the outrage come too late ... after this massive war bubble explodes in our faces?

Iraq

joe ruwe — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:06:01 EDT

Do not forget about Iraq. Though it is becoming difficult to find any stories anymore about the two wars we are still mired in, it's on my mind every day. The Olympics have distracted us. The Presidential race has distracted us. The Russian war in Georgia has distracted us. The anthrax hoax has distracted us. The economy has distracted us.

Do not be distracted.

This country should be demanding an end to this war at the top of their lungs. It has proven to be based on lies, document forgeries and other sinister foundations. We are not "winning", whatever that means, and the "surge" did not work. In fact, now that troops are slowly leaving, combat deaths and attacks are going back up. Well, DUH!!!??!!

What did we think was going to happen? Iraqi politics is a corrupt mess. Our mission there is murky and questionable. Iraq still has nothing to do with the hoax called the "war on terror." We still have not found Osama bin Laden or brought anyone to justice in connection to the crimes of 9/11. There is growing consensus among experts around the globe that bin Laden is probably dead and most likely was NOT behind the 9/11 attacks.

Yet we slog along in Iraq, losing more good people every day. All for nothing. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being flushed down the toilet. Innocent people being killed, families destroyed, and chaos raining down all over the country. Still no proper water and electricity in Iraq. I know, unbelievable. All I can do is shake my head.

I wish the war was still on everyones mind like it is mine. If the war was on the front pages, if the names of those killed were on the nightly news each night, if pictures of flag-draped coffins rolling home were everywhere, perhaps there would be a much greater public outcry. And McCain and the GOP would lose in a landslide in November.

I say again, do not be distracted. We were fools to invade and occupy that country. We will eventually be held accountable, in one way or another. We have helped make the world considerably less safe. We have created a generation of new enemies who hate us more than ever. And we have saddled our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with a debt that they might not be able to ever repay.

Stay focused. Stay angry. Keep pushing. Do not let the war mongers off the hook.

Not this time.

McCain Full of **It

Bill F — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:48:10 EDT

It seems John McCain's ever increasing list of criticisms about Obama just keeps reflecting back at him. Even the media is finally coming around to see the hypocrisy of most of McCain's attacks. Here's just a small sample...

McCain supported the Iraq War and is planning on staying there as long as necessary to "get the job done" -- even if the Iraqi government we created wants us out. Now he says, in support of Georgia, that in the 21st century no country can invade a soveriegn nation. Can't have it both ways Johnny. It probably doesn't help that his foreign policy advisor is on Georgia's payroll. Not only will a McCain presidency lead to economic depression and another war in Iran, but now we can add a nuclear standoff with Russia. It seems more and more that McCain is planning on ushering in the end of the world.
McCain claims Obama's "victory lap" around the world -- the one McCain taunted him into -- was presumptive and acting like the president already. Now we have McCain talking about Georiga and Russia as if he is already the Commander in Chief. He's even taken it upon himself to "disbatch" senators to the region. Talk about cocky! He just can't wait to fight!
This may not be McCain's fault, but many -- especially Republicans -- are saying John Edwards, knowing he cheated on his wife, should not have run for president. Well, let's not forget that Mr. McCain was courting Cindy McCain before he was divorced from his first wife. In fact, he began seeing Cindy while wife number one was severely injured from a car accident and laid up in a hospital bed. Of course he obviously doesn't think much of wives in general, as it is widely reported that McCain blew up publically (see McCain's temper) at her in front of reporters and said, and I quote, "At least I don't cake on the makeup like a trollup, cunt!" And now, Mr. Temper's wife has a ouchie hand after "shaking hands with a supporter". Sure. And I'm Barney Rubble. Could this have been a Tom Buchanon moment! (See The Great Gatsby) And talk about hypocritical -- McCain wears quite a bit of makeup to cover all his surgeries to remove cancer from his face. Hey, isn't that the same desease Liz Edwards has? Coincidence -- I think not! (I know, I know, I'm getting looney)
McCain claims all Obama will do is raise taxes and cut jobs. Well, if you're one of those amongst the most wealthy and greedy -- those who cause all the economic problems -- he will. If you're a normal to well-off person -- ya know, the ones we need to buy stuff to get the economy going but can't because WE HAVE NO MONEY -- those making under 200,000 a year, you're getting a MUCH better tax deal than with McCain's "plan". When the question comes up in debate, McCain is going to look foolish. "Uh, uh, if you raise taxes to the rich, they will cut employees to make up the difference, and uh, uh, jobs will be lost, unemployemnt, uh, uh, Regan, uh, huh, voodoo economics....uh...." SHUT UP JOHN. Say what you mean -- the rich folks are so damn greedy that if they have to personally pay a little more tax, they will make sure they make a gazillion dollars by screwing their employees and hurting the middle class! The same reason why cutting the tax on gas wouldn't help the consumer, because the GAS MEN would just see it as an opportunity to put more in their pockets and less into the governement AND RAISE PRICES. The rich, wealthy, and well-connected have one agenda, stick it to the regular guy as much as they can get away with so they can make the biggest profit possible without paying their share into our society through taxes. That is what McCain supports. Hard-working, white, working class voters -- PAY ATTENTION!!!! McCain would just assume you were homeless on the street selling crack as long as you don't touch any of Cindy's treasure! Hypocrite!
Last for today -- though there are many more examples (I just might give my self a stroke thinking about them) -- Mr. Drill-here-and-drill-now seems to think increasing the supply of oil by a bucket or two is going to help lower prices (see the previous point to see what will happen if that does happen). IDIOTS. We keep saying the same thing, most often in the summer. It's their way of robbing us blind. The oil companies jack up the prices immeasurably getting everyone in a tizzy, then roll them back a bit just as quickly, usually at the end of the summer (see current prices dropping). When it's over, we're thrilled we have these new low prices and completely forget just how low they were before the summer. Ex. we start the summer at say 2.99 a gallon (still way too high). Then, prices soar for this BS reason or that to 4.29. We all go nuts and say we're going to have to fix the system. Then, as summer ends, the prices "drop" to 3.85 and we're all happy and relieved -- AND TOTALLY FORGET JUST TWO MONTHS AGO IT WAS 2.99. I'm just saying. McCain and his oil buddies are hosing us at the pump! Don't forget that as soon as he became Johnny Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, DRILL ME McCain, he automatically got a 2 million dollar dump from oil companies. We see his base, and it's remarkably similary to Bush.

So, to recap, if McCain is elected, I predict...

The Second Great Depression, followed by...
WWIII with Western Countries taking on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Palestinians, and other Muslims we piss off, followed by...
A nuclear show down with Russia, as McCain, still trapped in the Cold War in his aging, alzhiemer's mind, tries to protect Georgia and all other countries who lobby him, followed by...
THE END OF THE WORLD by nuclear bombing from all parts of the globe to all other parts. There'll be so much war with McCain we won't even know who we're shooting at. Let's just help China's on our side... oh, wait, it doesn't matter -- THE PLANET WILL BE OBLITERATRED!!!

There's the new slogan -- "A vote for McCain is a vote for THE END OF THE WORLD". I see the commericial now, will the REM song in the background (with persmission of course -- RIGHT JOHNNY!). And McCain calls Obama "The One" AKA Antichrist. More hypocrisy!

****Today's blog was "catharsis" for me. If you were offended, sorry. Unless you were a Republican or rich, wealthy, or well-connected -- then -- TOO DAMN BAD!!!

******UPDATE********

I just read some interesting history I was unaware of. Go to Google or Wikipedia and plug in "Keating Five Scandal" and learn something new about our buddy Johnny McCain. Why this has not come up in the media, I have no idea.

Deployed Troops Donate to Obama over McCain

Deborah Simmel — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:46:57 EDT

If you've donated to Senator Obama's campaign, consider yourself in good company. Patriotic, flag-waving, self-sacrificing to duty and honor, company, in fact. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, analysis of records required by law, reveal that political campaign donations from U.S. troops deployed abroad, favor Obama six to one over McCain.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

Why We have to Win

Adam from Norwalk, CT — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:25:48 EDT

In the words of Republicans and others why President McCain is dangerous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

Another war president?

Ruby Jo — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:44:20 EDT

The video at the location shown below is the strongest argument I can think of for voting FOR Sen. Obama and AGAINST Sen. McCain. Please watch it, and let's try to get the campaign conversation away from who's the celebrity to who is the bluff-and-bluster war monger, leading the U.S. along the path of Chief Bully of the world.

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/devastating-mccain-video/

I don't know about you, but the very first reason I had for supporting Sen. Obama was that he saw in 2002 the same danger that I saw as the Iraq War was "marketed" to the U.S. public. I just didn't buy it and was appalled that so many U.S. journalists and the public were so quick to support a preemptive war. It was wrong in Vietnam, wrong in the first Gulf War, tragically wrong in the current Iraq War, will be wrong in any U.S. strike on Iran, and wrong in encouraging Georgia to overreach against Russia.

I'm really sick of war and politicians' lust for war. Like Bush and Cheney before him, Sen. McCain uses a combination of fear-mongering and national pride to get the public to support military overreach. Isn't the public getting smarter?

Please discuss.

Volunteer! Support!

Max Buchholz — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:52:09 EDT

I believe that America needs Senator Obama right now.

We need him because we're in a bad situation abroad. We're in a bad situation at home as well. We've gotten ourselves into those situations by being lazy. We've let the country be run by someone else somewhere else and have done little more than complain about what is going wrong.

Iraq, Please be our friend

Michael P. — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:11:07 EDT

So, Iraq has an $80 Billion surplus squirreled away around the world. $10 billion in US banks. Some experts think that amount may balloon to $169 Billion by the end of the year. Where's our cut?

O.K. The Iraqis say they need a cushion in case the bottom drops out of the oil industry, oil being their only source of income. Yeah, right. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Let them have a cushion.

Still, we, US, the American taxpayer, has dropped $48 Billion into rebuilding their country with a promise that Iraqi oil would repay us. Buy now Iraq says that the US will not get the money back because that investment will insure Iraq will be our strong ally.

Are our international relations so bad that we have to buy friends? From Iraq? This is worse than an internet scam. Bush, Cheney and their contract cronies made out like fat rats on our dime and all we can do about it is bend over and take it one more time.

Al Gore for VP

Emma — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:25:17 EDT

As the time for Obama to make a choice of a running mate draws closer, I figured I’d put my two cents in. My opinion hasn’t really changed since last I wrote on this subject but it seems the only topic of relevance this week so I’ll just clarify a bit, for what it’s worth…

If I was Obama I would choose Al Gore as Vice President. I would do so for a number of reasons. For one, it would help with the “inexperience” allegations, for who is more experienced than Al Gore? I’m guessing it might also help a little with the Clinton camp, which apparently is important. But mostly my opinion is of course based on an international perspective, and as a foreigner an Obama/Gore ticket would be a dream come true.

I know I’m probably alone in my hopes for an Obama/Gore ticket. It seems most have completely given up on this notion and I’m sure my opinion won’t count for much. But as the rest of the candidates on the list are as uninspiring as a mud pit, I thought I’d spice up the discussion a bit.

Book says White House ordered forgery

Mikeystyle — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:54:29 EDT

Mike Allen, Politico

A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”

Judgement to get foreign policy right - before the fact

Jay — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:05:03 EDT

As far as Obama, outside of rhetoric, right on so many judgment calls:

1) Right on not invading Iraq (bolstering Al Qaeda recruitment, allowing retrenchment in Afghanistan/Pakistan, isolating the US in the world community)

2) Right on the morass we’d encounter (not “easy” and being greeted as liberators as BOTH Bush and McCain proclaimed in 2003). SEVEN years in Iraq compared to FOUR years in WWII. Trillions of our tax dollars squandered and borrowed from the Chinese. And the tallest Arab in the world, the masterminds of 9/11 laughing their heads off in some cave in Pakistan while we suborn our Constitution and remove our shoes in Islamic fashion. Remember the goal of terrorism isn’t to “kill” as G. Moron Bush proclaims, the goal of terrorism is to make a society CHANGE its values and principles. Al Qaeda 3, US 0.

3) Right on setting a timeline in Iraq (both Bush and McCain said we’d leave when the Iraqis tell us to. (Oops, it’s nasty when democratically elected governments don’t do what the Neo-cons want). Well, we can always do what we did in Iran, and topple a democracy and establish a dictator like the Shah. Oops, been there done that.

4) Right on Afghanistan being the central front on terror (never saw a corporate takeover at a branch office versus HQ). All McCain can say to support his position on the central front is “that’s what Bin Laden says”. Good move letting your competition drive your strategy. Note to Bin Laden, just tell McCain that the central front on terror is in North Dakota and he’ll react accordingly and bring our troops home instead of having the sound, principled judgment to respect basic facts and strategy

5) Right on needing to redeploy forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. Conveniently “the generals” in Afghanistan don’t get listened to like Bush’s puppet Petraus who was put in place only after all previous generals disagreed with Bush and were "retired".

6) Right on attacking Pakistan targets. Vilified by Bush and McCain, then followed by Bush this year.

7) Right on negotiating with Iran. Vilified by Bush and McCain as an “appeaser”, then followed by Bush last week.

8) Right on the fact that we need more troops in Afghanistan NOW, not 18 months from now after he becomes President. You want to rail on something, take a time-machine trip to September 12, 2001 and replay all the Fox hype on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan versus the pure distraction in Iraq. Get right-wing cohorts focused back on our real problem, not the ones Bush and McCain invented along the way. We need to finish our retribution against those who attacked us. Why the hell should any of care about Iraq when those who masterminded the attack don’t see the brunt of our “shock and awe”?

9) Israeli leader says “the future belongs to the young” after meeting Barack

10) Iraqi leaders “endorse” Obama’s position on Iraq last week. Watch the White House spin tactics on this one! Truth hurts. Bottom line, ahead on decisions on all the major foreign policy issues of our time.

McCain’s “Pork Barrel” Claim Is Laughable

Al Pao in San Francisco — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:09:20 EDT

McCain said Senator Obama voted for "pork-barrel" spending time and time again. Although I am not a fan of "pork-barrel" spending, it is nonetheless DOMESTIC STIMULUS SPENDING, targeted at non-defense related activities all across the country.

What McCain forgot to mention was that he voted for the IRAQ war which has resulted in more money being wasted on a sectarian issue within a sovereign that had no bearing on making the United States any safer from terrorism.

The huge amount of money that is being spent by the defense department is also a kind of economic stimulus. However, the two main areas that the McCain spending seem to have stimulated most are an increase in revenues (in billions of dollars) for a select group of war profiteers, including Exxon, and an increase in gasoline prices for consumers.

The same money could have gone into infrastructure, which would have created jobs over a broad spectrum of industries, and into education, which would ensure the next generation of Americans would be well prepared for competition in the global economy, which is already upon us.

Governor Strickland formally endorses Barack

Michael in Ohio — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:10:02 EDT

It was no surprise to anyone who's seen him heralding Barack at numerous office openings across the state this past week, but today in the Jackson County Times-Journal, Governor Ted Strickland formally made himself a integral part of the campaign for change.

In the article below, Strickland outlines some of the reasons he supports Barack:

By KATHY SEXTON
Assistant Editor
Jackson County Times-Journal

JACKSON—Governor Ted Strickland has announced his support of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

In a telephone conversation with The Jackson County Times-Journal with Governor Strickland on Friday afternoon, the governor outlined his reasons for supporting Senator Barack Obama.

Everyone knows that Governor Strickland was a strong supporter of Senator Hilary Clinton in the primaries. Governor Strickland stated “I am proud of her and I like her. But the primaries are over, and the choice is now between Senator Obama and Senator John McCain. I think the country is headed in the wrong direction and needs a new course of action that will bring change.”

One of the main issues that Governor Strickland feels will be a top priority with a President Obama is the condition of the infrastructure in the country as a whole and in southeastern Ohio, specifically. If elected, one of the focal points of an Obama presidency will be placing a significant amount of resources in rebuilding the infrastructure in the country that has been neglected for many years.

Governor Strickland and Senator Obama feel that the rails, bridges, sewer systems and roads built in the 30’s and 40’s through the WPA program are long overdue for rebuilding. This would create jobs and help communities with their economic needs. The rebuilding of the country’s infrastructure will help for generations to come.

Click here to continue reading.

Surge Me Up More War

Nancy Davis — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:44:33 EDT

Enough already! The Iraq War is an immoral invasion of a sovereign nation which we now occupy. The absurdity of the USA occupying a Muslim nation is obvious. I could go on about Afghanistan too, but as Obama continues to maintain, the job was never completed there. We must bring Osama bin Laden to justice while attempting to help a more moderate government improve the country.

At issue once again is the military-might theory. Can anything be won militarily in a nation we invade? Aren't all countries in the process of defining themselves through their own governments and leadership, to include the forces of nationalism, the insurgencies or the rebels? Just because someone fights an invader does this render them an enemy combatent?

The concept of war has escaped the usual definition. We are not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq; we are at war with a segment of their national populous. By definition, it is very curious that these wars are justifiable. They are neither declared nor welcomed. Most of us are horrified by the thought of the death and destruction we no longer see on TV. This type of war is invasive and undiscerning. It targets citizens who do not wear uniforms. It kills indiscriminately and asks questions later. It relys on faulty intelligence, engages professional killers and follows no laws.

Maybe the surge quelled violence in Iraq. But so did putting Sunnis on our payroll, killing or jailing all suspects and the passage of time. And weren't the objectives of the surge political? Ask the GAO about its success.

McCain wants to claim expert judgement because he knows war. His commercials even claim Vietnam as a dutiful conflict when we know that 58,000 americans and thousands of Vietnamese died fighting a war that historically proved to be one of national liberation. Go vacation in Vietnam to try and understand why it was even fought. Then go to Iraq and try and figure out why we have killed, displaced, physically and mentally damaged so many innocent familes.

War of this nature will never be a success. It is an affront to humanity and dignity for both sides of the battle. Don't talk about the success of the surge in the context of the biggest strategic failure of our time.

Barack on the Berlin Wall

Halford Fairchild, Ph.D. — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:58:39 EDT

Wow! I am, at this moment, watching Barack, live on CNN, addressing Europe and the world. Wow!

The speech is over, I am wiping tears from my eyes. Really. I love Barack Obama. What a hopeful message for the people of the world.

Tearing down walls: Barack used the Berlin Wall metaphor to speak of tearing down walls between nations, between religions, between haves and have-nots. His quote, available elsewhere, will live in American history forever.

Nuclear Disarmament: Barack went the whole kabuddle! He called for a world of peace without nuclear weapons. (somebody pinch me)

Cold War Mindset: He called for a discarding of the Cold War mindset that used violence, and the threat of violence, as forms of international relations.

Sharing wealth for sustained growth: He noted that wealth for the few cannot sustain itself, and suggested that the riches of the West be used to eradicate the poverty of the rest of the world.

Trade that rewards work that produces wealth: He noted, between the lines, that the wealth of the West derives from the labor of the rest of the world. That wealth ought to be shared. (Footnote: slavery was the UNcompensated labor that created must of the wealth of the West in the first place.)

"This is the moment" was his chorus line, for ending war in Iraq; saving this planet.

We have a common humanity, a common destiny, common aspirations, and these should override all else that divides us.

What a brilliant, brilliant speech. This man doesn't quit!

By the way, one way that I like to support the campaign is by donating dollars here and there, and I've mentioned it before but I also like to shop at the Barack Obama store. I strongly urge that you check it out, and especially take a look at the Artists for Obama inside the store.

Tale of the Ancient Mariner's Navigator: GW BUSH

Obama PEACE Warrior — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:17:19 EDT

An Ancient Mariner was undertaking an important Voyage to find a new route to China for the Spice Trade, and hired a man to be his Navigator, whose sole experience was dressing up in his Daddy's old Navigator Uniform, and playing "Navigator" on his Daddy's expensive Yacht, which was kept docked at the Private Lake on his Daddy's palatial Estate.

The Navigator, whose name was George "Junior" Bush, was proud of his "resume", which his Daddy's scribes had "doctored" to make Junior look really good. In reality, his total experience consisted of "navigating" his Daddy's expensive Yacht into some Rocks, the first time he took it out for a "Spin". The Yacht was torn up, crushed and sank. Junior would have drowned, but his Daddy made sure some of his most trusted Advisors were aboard the Yacht, and they rescued him.

The Ancient Mariner and the Trading Company he worked for, knew full well the true story of the Wreck of the Bush Yacht, but, unfortunately for him, "Junior" Bush's Daddy had very important political connections, and very wealthy friends, so the Ancient Mariner agreed to hire him to be the Navigator for this important Voyage.

The Ancient Mariner's country was depending on him to find a new route to China, because their Economy was bad and the Spice Trade would rejuvenate the Nation's Shipping Fleet and open up a new market for the country's craftsmens. He crossed his fingers and hoped that young George would not wreck HIS Ship too. The Mariner dared not cross the boy's powerful Father.

Young George the Navigator, led the Ancient Mariner's Ship and it's Crew on a 1,000 Mile out of the way DETOUR, away from their objective, because he really was of course, terribly inexperienced and had really poor Navigating SKILLS, having slept thru his Classes at Navigating School. And as Fate would have it, George had a reputation for being reckless, arrogant, and stubborn.

His best friend had been the Navigator on a Ship called "Ye Olde Exxon Valdezia", which sank because he was passed out drunk on his Bunk.In short, George was just a very lucky, very spoiled rich kid with indulgent, doting Parents,blind to his mediocrity and stupidity. So, the Ship drifted on the Winds, lost and wandering, for months on end, as the Ship's Food supplies dwindled, drinking water grew scarce, and tempers became shorter. The long-suffering Crew grew more and more exhausted and angry at the clueless Navigator.

So the Ancient Mariner, with the Crew threatening to Mutiny, finally wised up and said, "I NEED A NEW NAVIGATOR, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHERE THE HELL HE IS GOING, OR WE WILL BE WANDERING OUT HERE, ON THE OCEANS, FOREVER, WITHOUT REACHING OUR OBJECTIVE, AND WE'LL NEVER FIND OUR WAY TO CHINA!

When he told the clueless Navigator that he was FIRED, young George was FURIOUS and yelled at the Ancient Mariner and the long suffering Crew members: "Why are you mad at ME, he yelled furiously, "You are all a bunch of ignorant PEASANTS? I am doing a TERRIFIC Job of Navigating this here Ship!" The Navigator pointed at the endless, TIMELESS HORIZON on the Ocean, where the Sun was setting, after yet another long day of sailing.

Look how well I have handled her on this 1,000 MILE Journey, I can keep on handling her and Navigating us for another 1,000 MILES, or 2,000 MILES MORE!! Can't you see what a SUCCESS my navigating has been?

The "NAVIGATOR" is our Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, and the "SURGE" is like the 1,000 Mile needless DETOUR which the Ancient Mariner's Ship was sent on, thanks to hiring the WRONG Navigator to plot their course to China!To say "The Surge is working in Iraq", as McCain and Bush brag, is irrelevant to the actual War on Terror.

It is like the Ancient Mariner's Ship being driven way off course, for thousands of miles, by a Navigator who has no earthly idea, of where the HELL he is going.Our Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, is that "Navigator" and his "Surge" is just a DETOUR in the War we are fighting against those who attacked us on 9/11!

It's time to hire a new Navigator to guide us, and that person is Sen. Barack Obama!

BLOOD OIL (REVEALED)

JETT EDWARDS — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:01:00 EDT

I NOT ONLY WANT TO END THE WAR

BUT I ALSO WANT TO CHANGE THE MIND SET

THAT GOT US INTO THE WAR!!!

(BLOOD OIL)

Why is No One Challenging This Notion That the Surge is a Success?

Steven from Norman, OK — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:26:51 EDT

So the new thing in the McCain campaign is to retort Barack Obama's claims of superior judgment about the disaster of starting the Iraq War with claims of superior judgment about the success story the "surge" turned out to be. And this story of campaign talking points gets passed around in the surficially non-partisan election-year coverage from the media without any analysis. What gets lost in this traditional election year back-and-forth is that the fiction about the surge's success remains unchallenged.

It's like everyone has forgotten why we had this surge of troops in the first place. We were tired of getting our asses kicked, so congress set up the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to come up with some things we could do to stop the hurtin'. When their report came out, Bush ignored most of the recommendations and keyed in on a footnote developed by some of the more hawkish members which suggested that the U.S. increase the number of soldiers in Baghdad by lengthening tours and whatnot. Strategy was developed to give purpose to these extra brigades, and the White House came up with the overarching goals, including reducing the violence enough to allow the Iraqis to come up with and enforce their own laws, training Iraqi security and law enforcement more quickly, and in general guiding Iraqis towards stable democracy. Good points certainly, but it required Iraqi leaders to take up the initiative. This is why the strategy was flawed.

The surge started in January of 2007 and would last through this month, July 2008. The new Democrat-controlled Congress gritted its teeth and passed many non-binding resolutions in full awareness of their lack of constitutional oversight into the executive branch's war powers. But they did manage to pass what would turn out to be completely irrelevant benchmark legislation that required the military to evaluate itself. They did evaluate themselves, dishonestly but still poorly, and the surge bumbled along. After the reporting frenzy of September 2007, the media started not caring about Iraq anymore, choosing instead to start Election 2008 coverage.

It wasn't until about November 2007 that violent attacks finally started to decline, which mostly went unnoticed at first. Eventually the media caught on to the fact that merely dozens of Americans instead of hundreds of Americans were being killed every month and reported it unequivocably as a success story, even though about a thousand Iraqi civilians still die every month from sectarian gunfire and suicide bombers. But since the whole stated purpose of the Surge was dependant on the Iraqis developing a functioning civil society, can we really call it a success? Have the Iraqis properly dealt with their problem of training militia members who turn around and become loyal to sectarian leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr? Are the national police loyal to the state? Are the Iraq Security Forces able to take our place yet? Do the people recognize the Iraqi parliament as the creator of laws? Are there oil-revenue sharing laws yet (I actually don't know about this one)? If these benchmarks of the surge aren't met, how can we call the surge a success? Someone needs to call John McCain's bluff.

(cross-posted at quibblingpotatoes.blogspot.com)

I Weep for Those Who Are Not My Own

Trish — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:11:38 EDT

I Weep for Those Who Are Not My Own I weep as any Father, Husband, Mother, Wife, Brother, Sister, Uncle, Aunt, Grandparent or Friend would at the loss of their loved one. I weep for those who are not my own… These soldiers Men and Women are all a part of us. The list is very long and growing longer each day. I weep for those who are not my own… Our voices on ending this War are varied, but our tears and aching hearts are clearly the same all over. I weep for those who are not my own… Let our cry be heard from the North to the South from the East to the West. Weep No More, Weep No More, And Weep No More!

PLEASE STOP THIS WAR!

Trish Nicholas

Iraq Quiz

Bill F — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:30:15 EDT

I was thinking...

What do the following individuals or groups have in common?

The Bush Administration, the American people, the Iraqis people, the democratically elected Iraqi government, and Barack Obama.

That's right -- all of these individuals or groups have made it public that they want some sort of time table for a withdrawl of American troops from Iraq. So, one more question. Who is not on this list? Right again!

JOHN MCCAIN

You're good at this game! I've intentionally set his name between two blank lines to highlight how all alone he is on this crucial issue -- clever huh? Okay, last question. For real this time. Now, does this make him a Maverick, someone willing to go against all conventional wisdom and influence to do what's right? Right! The answer is NO WAY IN HELL. The possible choices for McCain still wanting to stay in Iraq are...

a) He's a stubborn old man b) He's somehow in bed with big oil c) He's hoping the American people are dumb enough to fall for his "patriotism" ploy with talk of Obama "intentionlly losing the war" d) He has WORSE judgement than George Bush e) All of the above

I know, I know, I told you that you were done with the silly questions, but I couldn't help myself. It's "all of the above" of course. Once again, we are left wondering, "what is McCain thinking?" If the Iraqis want a time table for withdrawl, and George Bush's State Department would like to have a time "horizon" (translates to "time line" in Bushspeak) before they leave power, what exactly would McCain plan to do as President? Would he throw the agreed upon "horizon" out the window and stay AGAINST the wishes of the Iraqi people and government. We have a word for that -- occupation! Are we at war with the new Iraqi government WE INSTALLED? Um, no. If they are happy with the situation and want us to leave, we have no choice. Unless McCain is planning on being the second coming of Saddam Insane and making himself a dictator of a defeated nation, then he needs to back off. What choice does he have.

In perfect Republican political trickery, McCain and his camp won't answer questions about this backward thinking directly. Instead, they continue to play the same old recording over-and-over -- "I, John McCain, single-handedly created the concept of the surge and lead the surge troops into Iraq myself and have single-handedly given us a chance to win the war that is not yet won yet even though it is obvious we accomplished what we set out to do already and Barack Obama thought the surge was a bad idea but obviously I think he was wrong so he must be wrong and since he was wrong on that and won't admit it he must want to lose the war in Iraq and oh yeah did I mention he's a Muslim terrorist on crack with a wife that will enslave all white people once she's near the White House as revenge for the enslavement of 'her people' 'back in the day.'" PLEASE! Give us a break. WHAT IS HE THINKING?!?!? Though he's probably used to dealing with idiots, he shouldn't just expect all of America to be idiots and buy that garbage spin.

McCain is making this way too easy. This is probably the worse campaign run since...well, I guess just since Rudy's bid for the same nomination McCain is making a joke out of. (Did you see the two failures together at the Yankee game -- soaking up a GAME while Obama was out trying to heal the world?) I feel like we're Tom Sawyer in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and we would have to "make up" all the difficulties in freeing Jim because our opponents are so incompetent. Oh well, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. Not only do I think McCain will lose, but McBush and LieberBush will be voted out of the Senate the next chance their states get. Ahhh...revenge.

Just a thought.

Citizenship Delays for Iraq War Hero

Hope4Unity — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:09:31 EDT

ACLU Sues Government Over Citizenship Delay For Iraq War Hero

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

KANSAS CITY, MO – The American Civil Liberties Union sued the government in a federal court in Kansas for unlawfully delaying the citizen application of Julian Polous Al Matchy, a highly decorated U.S. Army war hero. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri in cooperation with the McCrummen Immigration Law Group, LLC against Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, FBI Director Robert Mueller and two officers of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The case is the latest in a string of lawsuits fighting prolonged, system-wide naturalization delays that are the result of lags in FBI background checks known as "name checks," which USCIS's own ombudsman has criticized as leading to rampant delays without any clear security benefit. Because of the delays, hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications have been held up well past the 120-day window established by Congress and the immigration agency itself for processing the applications.

"Our government has failed in its obligation to give a timely decision to long-time lawful permanent residents who have followed all the rules and want to pledge their allegiance to the United States," said Cecillia Wang, managing attorney for the San Francisco office of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "It is particularly outrageous that Julian Polous Al Matchy, who voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Army and received a Purple Heart after being wounded in battle in Iraq, is among the countless immigrants who have been left in limbo in violation of the law."

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:26:59 EDT

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

German Magazine Interview with al-Maliki re: Obama's Withdrawal Plan

Gordon Broom — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:16:46 EDT

This is a link to the complete interview der Spiegel did with Iraqi PB al-Maliki who supports Senator Obama's 16 month plan for the withdrawal of our troops. It will be interesting to see how Bush McCain parse their words.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

"TIME HORIZON", A Sci Fi Classic Tale of A President

Obama PEACE Warrior — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:33:39 EDT

"TIME HORIZON", A Sci Fi Classic Tale
Our Commander in Chief doesn't call it "retreating" anymore, the Brave New Word is "dis-established" the Outpost", i.e., when it was overrun by Afghan Taliban insurgents, the NATO and American Troops were ordered to "dis-establish" the Base by their Leaders.
Also, we're not on a Timetable, goodness, No! That would be silly! No, America's Troops now have a "TIME HORIZON" in Iraq, folks! Sounds like somebody in little Bush's camp has been reading some Science Fiction at night, and running phrases past Focus Groups to see what sounded "Commander-in-Chiefy", as Pres. Bush might put it. I guess "Time Horizon" sounded the most "Commander-in-Chiefy"!
"TIME HORIZON", the Sci Fi Classic tale of an American President in the 21st Century who caused a terrible ..... and ..... and .... oh my.... !
.... well, what kind of terrible surprises will be sprung on a wary America, by an increasingly out-of-touch Bush regime? Right now, Bush is in the final months of his "Lame Duck" but still "Imperial" Presidency. Just who in his circle of advisors will be the One to decide what 'tricks" to pull on us? Dick Cheney? Condi Rice? Sec. Gates? George W. Bush himself?? Daddy Bush?
Whatever their decisions, they hold the "TIME HORIZON" of the entire WORLD in their hands. I sure hope they don't make the same kind of wrong-headed decisions they made during the rest of his Presidency!
Or we might end up with a "LOST HORIZON".

Obama on the Right Path for Withdrawal of Troops

Gordon Broom — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:14:19 EDT

I heard on MSNBC this morning that the Iraqi's Prime Minister al Maliki supprts a plan for withdrawing US troops that is closer to the Obama 16 month withdrawal plan. I could not find anything about this on the MSNBC website, but through a google search I turned up the following from cbs2chicago.com.

"In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he supported a plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked when he thinks U.S. troops should leave Iraq, al-Maliki told the magazine, "As soon as possible, as far as we are concerned."

The article goes on to say that Prime Minister al Maliki added, "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."

MSNBC in their coverage this morning stated that the prime minister wants to stay out of the American presidential campaign and does not want his comments seen as an endorsement of Senator Obama.

I think that the "Horizon" verbiage used by the Bush McCain camp is a smoke screen. The bottom line is that Iraq wants the American military out of Iraq A.S.A.P. and Bush McCain want the American troops to leave on the Bush McCain timetable not the timetable of the country America chose to invade.

Obama has it right. Bush McCain has it all wrong.

"A New Strategy for a New World"

Compassionate Badger — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:15 EDT

See Original Post

"I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world," Senator Barack Obama on July 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

He just sounds like a President! Take the time to watch Senator Obama's 36 minute speech or read the outline of his 5 points below.

Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would.

The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

. . .

. . . "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?

Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

. . .

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead.

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

. . .

Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war . . .

. . .

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

. . .

In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan . . .

. . .

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

. . .

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces . . . The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't . . .

. . .

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

. . .

. . . I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism . . .

. . . America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global . . .

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

. . . we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need . . .

. . . my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil.

. . .

This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.

. . .

. . . my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.

For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.

. . .

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

. . . For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

. . . the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew.

The Surge is Not Really Over

Cindy in Salt Lake — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:27:33 EDT

There are more troops in Iraq now than before the surge; 18,000 of them. The surge is not really over and the benchmarks, such as an agreement on how to share oil wealth, have not been met. Watch this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25710586.

A Hand in Your Pocket!

WeDemocrats — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:03:10 EDT

There probably isn’t a man alive who doesn’t reach his hand into his pocket on a daily basis. It is a normal occurrence, paying for a purchase, or just standing around waiting for something, hand in the pocket without giving it a thought.

Well the news out of Washington Friday July 11 was more than a bit disturbing. It seems that we are all familiar with George Bush and his moneyed Republican friends sticking their hands into our pockets, through high gasoline and food prices, as well as through taxes on everything including the kitchen sink.

They Want us Out

Tom Awtry — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:37:22 EDT

Reading what I considered a factual blog on HuffingtonPost.com, talking with numerous friends and family, listening to many past media newscasts; allows me to wonder why we’re still in Iraq. This past week even the Iraqi leaders -- notably Nouri al-Maliki -- are standing up to the US by demanding a timeline for withdrawal.

Many say this five year old war was about oil, while others claim Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism, which theory is correct? Personally, I believe it was for oil, Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon, Shell, GE and the aerospace community of contractors, all who have and are, reaping enormous profits.

Now it’s time for our departure before these aforementioned companies “totally” bankrupt our US economy.

The most that can be expected at this stage are November electoral mandates for peace and a speedy withdrawal from both American and Iraqi voters. This will not be easy, despite the peace majorities entrenched in both countries. In the meantime, Congressional debate over the secret US-Iraq "status of forces" agreement will keep the issues front-and-center.

If Barack Obama goes through with his high-risk plan to visit Iraq [and Afghanistan], he may be confronted by US military commanders and Iraqi leaders questioning his 16-month timetable as naive and threatening to national security. On the other hand, Obama risks demoralization within his electoral base if he wavers on basics.

Meanwhile, in John McCain, the hawks have found the perfect iconic candidate for keeping the Iraq war alive through the present depths of its democratic legitimacy crisis. McCain's election would serve the interests of the Pentagon, revive the neo-conservative era, and further deepen the conflict between democracy and empire.

Source: HuffingtonPost

Update: 14 Jul 08

Obama Lays Out Clear Plan For Iraq Withdrawal In NY Times Op-Ed

The New York Times

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face -- from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran -- has grown.

Who’s Campaigning for President?

Tom Awtry — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:35:09 EDT

Why is it Bush keeps echoing that he’s “not” going to become involved in the opposing candidate’s quest for the presidency, but continues to provide jabs at Senator Obama’s every comment when it opposes his highly prized programs, which have failed miserably?

I think it is fair access this observation based on an article, which appeared within Politico, entitled “Bush warns Obama on Iraq politicking” and quoted:

“I would hope that whoever follows me realizes we’re at war,” he said. “While there hasn’t been an attack on the homeland, that doesn’t mean people don’t want to attack us. … We have to deny safe haven. … They want us to leave. … If given a chance, democracy will succeed.”

Source: Politico

Bush’s latest jab came from an e-Mail circulated by the moveon.org where MoveOn delivered to its members a topic entitled “The beginning of the end?” and reads as follows:

Dear MoveOn member,

Three big things happened on Iraq this week. They could mean the beginning of the end of the war.

But since the media have mostly ignored them, I wanted to make sure you saw what's going on.

Here's the scoop:

Iraqis want U.S. Troops out. No one was expecting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak up in favor of withdrawal—after all, he's close with the Bush administration. But with elections in Iraq coming up, and a great majority of Iraqis opposed to a prolonged U.S. occupation, Maliki can't afford to toe the Bush line. So he's surprised everyone by standing up this week for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a date certain to end the war. The LA Times headline reads, "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timeline."1

As a result, the "endless war agreement" Bush has been pushing fell through. Since January, hundreds of thousands of us pushed Congress to stand up to President Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq, which would have tied the next President's hands and made it much harder to get out. This week, the Washington Post reported that that agreement has fallen through—Iraqi leaders are putting their feet down and demanding a much shorter agreement.2

And now even the Pentagon is considering faster timelines. According to reporter Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, "a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report" will recommend a big drawdown of troops—suggesting "that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now."3

In other words, it's now clear: Most Americans are for a timeline, and so are most Iraqis. And even experts in the Pentagon agree.

For his part, Barack Obama is using these developments to hammer home the point that John McCain and President Bush are now isolated in their resistance to any kind of timeline for withdrawal. He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that reaffirmed his commitment to a timeline that would have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

It concludes, "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea. . . [F]or far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war."4

It's important that we all work to get the word out about these developments. You can even start by just forwarding this email. Most Americans still don't know that the Iraqis want us out. And that may be the single most important fact to share at this point in time.

I'm always shocked when someone points out that it's been six years since we first started working together to prevent an Iraq war. This week, we're turning a corner in that fight. Bush's permanent war agreement has fallen through. The Iraqi politicians are speaking up. And if we keep working together, we just might see the remaining holdouts in Washington coming around as well.

Thanks for all you do,

–Eli Pariser

Sources:

1. "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timetable," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3940&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=2

2. "U.S., Iraq Scale Down Negotiations Over Forces," Washington Post, July 13, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3941&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=3

3. "Who Says Less Troops?," Newsweek, July 21, 2008.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145848

4. "My Plan for Iraq," Barack Obama, New York Times, July 14, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3942&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=4

Barack Obama finished making a major speech on Iraq and foreign policy. Here's how he described the Bush-McCain approach:

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq—they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government—not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

You can read the speech here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3939&id=13247-8708491-gQ4wgsx&t=1

The Moving Finger of Fate Slides Across America

Obama PEACE Warrior — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:51:42 EDT

I'm a big fan of science fiction, and it has struck me how Americans all seem kind of hunkered down now, watching the "moving finger of "fate" slide across America, from one end to another, striking at random like the Alien ships in the Movie, "Independence Day", with actor Will Smith or "War of the Worlds" with Tom Cruise?

I think We're all just hoping, and praying if we are religiously inclined, that the dreaded "finger of fate" which has been bringing increasingly powerful, more destructive natural disasters, that it will please, God, just pass US by; spare OUR loved ones and friends!

So, we watch the valiant Volunteer Firefighters in Small towns across California, many of them retired and in their 60's and 70's even! facing the flames and fighting the flames, mostly alone, while one weary volunteer, in his 60's, wonders aloud, "Where is the government"? While they beg for supplies & resources and Manpower that NEVER COMES. It's diverted to bigger cities, while National Guard troops have been "diverted" to fight in the Iraq War.

We watch Farmers and small town business owners in America's heartland along the Mississipp River, State after State, see their crops, their homes,their hopes & dreams, their way of life, wash away along with the muddy, churning Floodwaters, as Levees they have busted their backs shoring up with sandbags, one by one break.

And although most bravely "soldier on" they have a stunned look, like they're thinking, like me, of the Flooding that hit New Orleans, Louisiana and rural Mississippi. But this is different, it's hit HOME now, how truly vulnerable we are, as Americans.

And the worse thing about seeing these random natural disasters hopskotch across the Nation, hitting who-knows-where NEXT? Is that we all KNOW, even the most loyal, staunchest Bush "grassroots" supporters, that the President currently inhabiting the White House, is NOT going to be there for us. That if the "moving finger of fate" hits OUR homes, OUR loved ones, OUR communities, that we won't be able to COUNT ON this PRESIDENT, George W. Bush, to help us.

John McCain, my "friend", THAT is truly SCARY! More scary than a Sky full of Alien Spaceships attacking Earth.

And THAT is why I am supporting Barack Obama! He has his feet planted firmly on Terra Firma, he understands what we are facing, and he is the one we need in the White House to see us through the next Eight years!

THE SURGE IS WORKING PER MC CAIN & GOP - NOT ! ! ! ! ! !

new day 4 us — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:44:34 EDT

07/07/07

I found a great story today by Mitchell Bard about a little GAO report that mainstream media / Mc Cain / and the GOP seem to have overlooked. THE SURGE IS FAILING IN ITS MAIN GOAL - to give the Iraqi govt. breathing room to get its case in order.

But listening to McCain today - "the surge is working".

Please get the information out on this GAO report.

www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/the-surge-is-working-not_b_108976.html

Defining Change

I Am The Walrus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:02:49 EDT

The definition of "change" is purely subjective, and forever subject to evolution and revision. My initial impression of what "change" implies, both on a state and nationwide level, and concerning a variety of subject matter, is certainly different than that which I currently subscribe to. With that in mind, it's easy to empathize with the same behavior in anyone, even the harbinger of change that is Senator Obama. Is it fair to judge him over a revision of public policy pertaining to the FISA legislation, or the proposed troop pullout timeframe for the Iraq war? Are those alterations in policy significant enough to warrant his supporters' outrage? What kinds of change can we realistically look forward to, and to what extent will future amendments be made to those same campaign promises?

Let's get down to the bare bones of this operation. I am entrusting Senator Obama with the ability to discern the following things:

What is broken
What is not broken
What needs changing
What doesn't need changing

And of course, how best to prioritize - both domestic and foreign policy-wise - such planned implementations in infrastructure.

Fair enough. So what is "change I can believe in" defined as? Realistically speaking, we need to further qualify what "broken" is, as well as what can reasonably be done to "fix" it. Change in this context implies both progressive, digressive, and regressive action, depending on the specific topic. Does the spectrum between what is "broken" and what is "fixed" equate to a certain proximity to the constitution or some other moral and ethical decree? Is it possible to collectively agree on what this "better world" is going to be? I only know what is improvement on "my terms," and at best on a very limited "our terms" level, so where is the line we can all comfortably congregate behind?

As an inquisitive, free-thinking individual, I am naturally curious and open to discussion devoid of emotional bias. Talk about stating the obvious.

An Open Letter to Barack

acupunck07 — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:14:02 EDT

Dear Mr. Obama,

Now that you are the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party I hope you won't forget Progressives, like me, who are hoping for a real change in Washington. So far, it seems you are drifting away from the leadership you promised since becoming the nominee. Why are you supporting the FISA bill, allowing telecom corporations to spy on Americans with no recourse by those whose rights may be violated?

Why are you now willing to support "faith based initiatives"?

I understand you are backtracking on bringing our troops home within 18 months. You would do well by tying the 6 year Iraq War to our faltering economy with a loss of close to 1/2 million jobs, a 10 trillion dollar national debt, a falling dollar and skyrocketing energy and food prices.

What about affordable Health Care? The Plan you are proposing is less than adequate and won't cover those of us who can't afford the premiums that would be imposed upon us. We need a One Payer system that is inclusive and covers all Americans. There needs to be true leadership on this issue. The HMO is an inefficient, model that does not cover all equally.

Prior to your nomination, it seemed as though you were following your own internal astute compass. Don't let it get muddled by these Washington paid, political consultants: the elite.

I truly hope that the Change you want us to believe in is "Real" change from the status quo and not just another slogan used at election time.

Three Trillion Dollars

GK Mandigo — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:17:40 EDT

We are told that the total cost of the Iraq War will be over 3 Trillion dollars but that is a hard number to get our heads around. When you jump from million to billion to trillion, you really get no sense of how big of a difference that is. So consider that one dollar equals one second...

$1 = 1 Second
$10 = 10 Seconds
$100 = 1.67 Minutes
$1,000 = 16.67 Minutes
$10,000 = 2.67 Hours
$100,000 = 1.16 Days
$1 Million = 1.65 Weeks
$10 Million = 3.82 Months
$100 Million = 3.18 Years
$1 Billion = 31.80 Years
$10 Billion = 317.97 Years
$100 Billion = 3,179.69 Years
$1 Trillion = 31,796.91 Years

Current cost of Iraq War* = $534 Billion = 16,979.55 Years
Current estimated total cost of Iraq War = $3 Trillion =
95,390.72 Years
*Figure from nationalpriorities.org

How many problems here in the United States do you think we could have solved with 3 Trillion dollars? Could we have cured cancer? Could we have invented the technology to get us off of fossil fuels and begin to really address global warming? Could we have provided comprehensive health care to all of our citizens? Could we have captured Osama bin Laden, the man who really did attack us?

Never forget, Iraq did not attack us. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wanted this war and made sure that it happened. We will be paying for the cost of that decision for a long time.

Obama's Iraq Position

Gordon Broom — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:00:30 EDT

With all the debate over Obama becoming more centrist, sometimes heated debate has ensued, Many Obama supporters find themselves disappointed and less enthusiastic about the campaign. Take heart as I did when I read this great piece. It's by Andrew Sullivan which is posted on his blog at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/obama-on-iraq.html Gordon ----------------------------- July 3, 2008 I'm relieved that he has shifted exactly as I hoped he would: to a pragmatic commitment to a withdrawal strategy that does not jeopardize the fragile and reversible gains of the last year or so. I don't see this as a U-turn, any more than I regard my own attempt to understand the situation in Iraq as best I can and to remain open to good, as well as bad, developments as some kind of flaw. Very few people foresaw the extent of the gains we have made this past year, in part because a new counter-insurgency had the luck to coincide with some real shifts among Sunni tribes and the Sadrite opposition. But facts change. Shouldn't tactical policy respond? I would never have felt that Obama would be a good president if I felt he'd stick to a position on an issue irrespective of empirical data. As long as the goal is total withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible, and the man doing it has the vital characteristic of having opposed the war in the first place, I'm fine with pragmatism. Any conservative should be. And this shift is yet another instance of Obama's remarkably shrewd post-primary strategy. He is slowly undermining every conceivable reason to vote for McCain. If you want to withdraw from Iraq - as prudently as possible - Obama is your man. He won't risk chaos in a precipitous withdrawal regardless of the strategic and tactical situation. Unlike McCain, he is also unafraid of Baker-Hamilton diplomacy; and unlike McCain, he does not threaten a hundred years of occupation and the suspicion that he'd like the U.S. to stay there for ever. What can McCain say now? All he can say, I think, is that Obama is cynical. I don''t think that's fair: there's a distinction between cynical and pragmatic. When you put this together with Obama's defusing of the patriotism issue and his brazen cooptation of Bush's faith-based social services policy, you see what a gifted strategist Obama is. And if you don't see the power of it, just check out the Bush-right blogs right now. They're veering between a splutter and a strange new respect. Heh.

Remember, we're in a war here

Jimmy J. Pack Jr. — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:22:09 EDT

Every year, at some point during Memorial Day weekend and the 4th of July, I find myself walking around Philadelphia, particularly the Independence Hall area, purposely looking for protesters, demonstrators, or some type of display that deepens our awareness of what soldiers give to their country.

It's a semi-subconscious thing I do. I'm not completely sure why, but I reason with myself that it's my way of trying to connect to both of my grandfathers, two army vets who kept most of the horrors they saw during war to themselves.

I never knew my mother's father -- he died of cirrhosis in November 1966. He joined the service at the age of 16, and after battling in the Pacific Theater in WWII, fought in the Korean War. According to the VA, all his army records burned in a fire in the early 1970s, but from what I remember, my mom had a drawer full of medals that were all his.

My dad's father passed away last year, but over the years he (and my grandmother) had been sending me his past in small envelopes -- old ration tickets, copies of army personnel papers, a French flag stained with blood, and booklets letting soldiers know how to become "normal" citizens of the United States. He fought in Europe and Africa.

"Grampa Al" was wounded three times -- twice in Italy, and once in France. He never talked about the war or what he saw except once, just before he slipped away in a stroke. Sometimes he was lucid enough to know he was in a rocker, other times he was worm-holed to 1944. He thought he was in Italy, gassing up buses. He said to me, "Jimmy… The river over there is red. It's full of blood. It doesn't look like water anymore. It's just fulla blood."

I don't know whether he was in Sicily, Naples, Foggia, Rome or Arno, but I know that after he said that, he looked as if he were watching his life slowly drain from him. He was terrified, sickened, and spent the last few years of his life unable to sleep; the war was always with him.

This is something I think about all the time. You can't help but admire the fact that so many people around the world are faced with images that haunt them and drag their internal lives into the Inferno every time their eyes are closed, yet they can function with the tedious pickings of answering phones at work, doing laundry, or having a quiet family dinner with their children and/or grandchildren.

This is why people call soldiers heroes. It is not a word to be thrown around or a title given to people who return wallets or help elderly people cross the street -- these are things we should expect people to do. Heroes sacrifice their entire lives for the betterment of society.

And here, across the street from the Constitution Center, the irony of a mock graveyard created to raise awareness of the cost of the Iraq War sitting in the shadow of a building devoted to the United States' Constitution is not lost on me. I look at each white "headstone" and the photos and names of soldiers who've died in Iraq, and find a heaving in my stomach every time I read the words "PTSD Suicide."

There's not one or two, but every fifth or sixth marker holds the name of another man who committed suicide due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I stop and kneel in front of the last name I'm willing to see -- Spc. Timothy Bowman, Il Army Nat. Guard. Dead at age 23.

What did Specialist Bowman see, what did he go through that led him to end his life when he was back at home in Illinois? His father, Mike, testified in front of the House Veterans Affairs Committee to discuss the issue of PTSD-related suicides.

"If the veteran suicide rate is not classified as an epidemic that needs immediate and drastic attention, then the American fighting soldier needs someone in Washington who thinks it is," said Mr. Bowman in his testimony.

Kneeling in the grass I can feel my kneecaps numb from the cold earth, but I don't stand up. I have to kneel there a little longer and let it soak in. I need to blame someone for this and something has to be done. I look around to see other people weaving in and out of the markers, but I am only one of two people. On the edges of the street I see families boarding the fake trolleys that roam the city. There are 20-something guys walking towards the bars in tight shirts an artificially-worn baseball caps. There are three teenage girls sharing one cell phone giggling into the receiver with their collective soul.

This is how I know I am lost in a supermarket university culture that spends more time pushing PR for American Idol and snappy new T-shirt stores than it does educating the public about current events. And I'm supposed to be upset because people can't sell their houses or take a plane to Paris for the weekend, and that just by coincidence the price of oil has doubled in a year and Exxon Mobil has billions of extra cash and these two things have nothing to do with one another.

Here I stand with the make-believe headstone of an actual person in a fake culture with real problems, and no one wants to put the blame on anyone for anything. No, somehow, some way this all makes sense to 50 pecent of all Americans. They support this bullshit war only an idiot could say was justified, and only those same people can prattle on with their illegitimate beliefs that this is all tied to the "War on Terrorism," despite the fact that ALL evidence proves there was no reason to go into Iraq. Fifty-percent of Americans are caught in a right-wing headlight blinding them to the fact that the man who bombed the World Trade Center is still alive, still plotting and running Al Quaeda, Afghanistan is getting worse, and now there's talk that we need to go into Iran.

I'm through the looking glass, here, and in this alternate universe, the alternative to living almost makes sense, particularly when the rest of the world makes none. What is going through the minds of the thousands of soldiers who have, or have had, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that make them take their own lives? We need to know and we need to stop it … More important, people need to be made aware that this is a problem. It needs to be shoved in their face like all the fools who know who won American Idol or who believe reality TV is, indeed, real.

This July 4th I'm remembering the soldiers -- all of them, from every war that ever was. And while I haven't seen the nightmares they've lived, I feel for them. I remember them, and I hope their plight doesn't continue to go as unnoticed as a white graveyard in the middle of a gray city.

We need Obama to help change this -- to bring sanity back to this country.

Wars & Budgets

Megan Brennan — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:26:52 EDT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25457283/

Bush just signed a $162 BILLION war spending bill!

All I can really say right now is that this is ridiculous! Is this ever going to end??

And when Clinton left office - WE HAD A BUDGET SURPLUS! And now we're - what? - trillions of dollars in debt?! IN EIGHT YEARS!

People, this HAS GOT TO END!!!!