Surprise, Surprise

This should shock no one.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

Is it really striking that the Republicans would, in an election year, reduce the number of troops in Iraq, increasing the number in Afghanistan? It makes absolute sense for the Republicans to take a bite of out Obama's plan, to blunt his speech on the war. Count me as one of the people who didn't for one second think it was coincidence that the Iraqi Government is suddenly demanding some kind of loose time line, it'll give the Republicans political cover to backtrack on years of (failed) policy, just in time for the election. It was well worth the week or so of political heat they took, as they'll suddenly be able to talk what nearly every American wants to hear: a date of withdrawal, or at least that we should create one.

Don't believe it for a second. After all, no one wanted to leave Iraq more than Joe Lieberman, right? The Republicans will increasing talk some troop withdrawals and even time lines for the rest of the campaign, but it won't amount to much after the election, as they do everything they can to obstruct our soldiers' extrication from Iraq. We've seen this play book all before; it's important that the American people don't fall for it again.

Body of War: Special Screening

Campus Progress keeps sending me all sorts of emails nowadays, even though I finally finished school, but so much the better - because they invited me to a special screening of a fantastic documentary called Body of War, which I saw tonight in Cambridge. It's about a wounded veteran, Tomas Young, who was shot just below the collar bone on his 5th day in Iraq - paralyzed from the chest down. It's a good illustration of the full consequences to Bush's venture in the Middle East - and all the lives he's ruining in the process.

Tonight's screening was technically an advance showing; it doesn't open until April 11th. However, the film's producer and news/talk personality, Phil Donoghue, will be at the film's local premiere in the Cambridge Kendall Square Cinema. I hope some readers will attend. It's important that we, as a people, take a step back and really think about the consequences of this war. It certainly adds perspective, and more importantly gives us the much-needed kick in the butt to do something about it. For example, it's well past time for the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster any war funding in Iraq - something that may very well come up this April. I'll certainly be calling Kerry's office to make sure he'll do the right thing as his term is about to expire and he's seeking reelection.

Now That John's Out

I don't feel there's a voice for people like me - people who think corporate influence is too great and that people who work hard every day ought to be justly rewarded, regardless of whether they're a janitor or a CEO.

Obama's message is downright repulsive, in my view, because the US is never going to be hippy-dippy, let's-sing-kumbayah Purple America. The Republican Leadership just doesn't work like that. They'll obstruct, block and play to the greater devils of people's nature as they climb back to a majority status sooner or later, as they paint the Democrats as do nothing Democrats - even if it won't be true. The window to create important change through a super majority is almost always small, and only comes from the type of bold leadership that rejects the fundamental notions of our opponents. Someone who stumps on how we need to reform social security now isn't the kind of person who'll do anything to create an actual, long-lasting progressive movement.

I went from not being excited about any of the candidates a few months ago, to being heart broken John Edwards isn't at least carrying on his message through Super Tsunami Tuesday. Can I actually, in good conscience, vote for Hillary? I don't think so... and there's less than a week to decide. Ryan's not a happy camper.

So, Let's Get This Straight

Turkey's getting ready to amp up their attacks against the Kurds, in Iraq.

We're twattling away in that country, just itching to invade Iran.

Meanwhile, we're losing our grip in the one country we had a reason to be in, Afghanistan. Seriously, how could this administration ever allow the Taliban to regain steam - and why isn't this nation camping on the lawn of Bush's Pennsylvania Avenue address, screaming for something to be done about it?

Why aren't the Democrats standing up to him?

What is going on with this country?

MA-05 Getting Close?

That's what Mike says. Apparently, the polls have tightened to around 10%. While that's not a landslide, I don't know if I'd be willing to say this thing is close quite yet. We'll see if it gets even closer, or not.

Still though, as Mike's diatribe points out rather well, it's certainly frustrating Niki is trying to be an outsider candidate of change instead of playing to her strengths. Republican-lite isn't the best strategy anywhere, because more people will just want the real deal. Here's hoping Tsongas stops hitting the snooze button, turns off the alarm and goes on the attack - no more miss nice gal when there are men and women dying in the thousands in Iraq. Mr. Oganowski would just keep them there longer and that's not going to be a popular decision anywhere in Massachusetts, even in the conservative-ish 5th.

Sacrifice

Keeping the effort afloat, women knew a lot about sacrifice during WWII.

For the past few nights, I've been watching several parts of a great documentary on PBS simply entitled "The War." In it, people learn about a whole host of issues coming from the vantage point of citizens from one of four different US communities during World War Two, such as Mobile, Alabama and Sacramento, California. What's astoundingly clear is that everyone - man, woman and child - sacrificed everything to ensure victory. Why? Because it was a necessary war.

People were saving the fat from their bacon because it could be used to make munitions. They were baking birthday cakes with neither flour nor sugar. They were working in factories 24/7, pumping out more planes than people could fly (which is a lot, considering dozens were lost every day). Meanwhile, almost an entire generation of men and women put their lives at risk, all around the world, as nurses and soldiers, to protect the globe from a very real - and potent - threat. United States citizens did anything and everything they could to win because they knew, in their heart of hearts, that Germany had to be defeated. Back then, the Axis really was an Axis of Evil, even if politicians of FDR's stripe weren't as practiced in using falsified fear and hyperbole.

Meanwhile, our politicians today are so convinced Iraq is just that they're willing to sacrifice a lot - after all, just think how much larger those tax cuts for the rich could have been! Politicians are so proud of their troops, they encourage none of their own sons and daughters to become Army Strong. (FDR's eldest son served in one of the most elite and dangerous Pacific fighting forces. Reportedly, one of Bush's twins is engaged to be married.) Our elected leaders show their support for our men and women who risk their lives every day by wearing stickers on their cars and making sure they don't have enough proper body and Humvee armor. Because, really, wouldn't paying for all that be cheating or something?

Our cause is so necessary that there's no point in even trying to come to a diplomatic solution, or reaching out to the world for help. Nope, we own Iraq and we're even willing to make our children pay for it, quite literally. That's how much it's worth sacrificing for, because, really, who can expect people to go without cell phones that can toast bread and televisions so advanced that they really do take you out to the ball game? Some sacrifices are too much to bear.

Here's the most important lesson from "The War." Unless a country is willing to sacrifice everything, it ought to think twice about waging a war in the first place. Where are all the war supporters demanding to pay higher taxes to fund it, or demanding the draft be instituted so their sons and daughters can risk their lives, too? Can anyone imagine the people who fought World War Two being willing to sacrifice just the same for similar justifications that brought us to Baghdad? Maybe they really were the greatest generation, after all. At least they were a generation of people who were only willing to wage wars they felt were so necessary that they'd sacrifice everything to win - because they had to win, or else.

A Bit of Truth on Iraq from Kerry

Just got this quote in an email. It's from his opening statement yesterday, at the Patraeus hearing.

Let’s be absolutely clear: whatever “tactical successes” we have achieved have not translated into the strategic success we need to turn the tide. The escalation has failed to resolve the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia that continues to drive the Iraqi civil war, and there’s no reason to believe that more of the same is going to make a difference.

For sure. It's time to start to lick our wounds, start to withdraw and come home. There's nothing we can do in Iraq, except either stall the inevitable or make things worse. It seems like the latter is more likely.

Senator Kerry on Iraq

Senator Kerry's Position on Iraq

While it's important to be right on one of the biggest issues facing America today, sometimes having the right position isn't enough. I'm positively ecstatic to have a Senator I can vote for every six years who has stood up to get us home from a war we shouldn't have been in the first place - even if he didn't get that vote right the first time. Yet, the why behind Kerry's position isn't exactly inspiring. Basically, here's the gist of how he feels:

“The latest NIE on Iraq reinforces what we've known for a long time: Despite our troops’ sacrifice, Iraqi politicians are not taking the necessary steps to achieve national reconciliation, and only political progress can build a sustainable security in Iraq.”

I got this quote from a recent statement by his campaign sent to me in an email today, but it's a mantra he's been saying for months now: while our troops are fighting valiantly, the Iraqi people aren't doing their job. Their government isn't stepping up. Basically, Kerry's deduction is that it's Iraq's fault things are screwed up in that country, not America's, and they don't deserve our continued presence and sacrifice there.

Maybe Kerry is afraid of being smeared as blaming it on the troops, but he shouldn't worry so much: it certainly isn't our troops' fault; we lost this war well before they ever got there. No, the current status in Iraq is Neoconservative America's fault. It's the fault of everyone who voted for our current monster of a President. Most of all, we can lay the blame on an (a)pathetic media, Dick Cheney, President Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Joe Lieberman, Republican lapdogs in Congress, Democratic lapdogs in Congress, Karl Rove and every other Turd Blossom in and around the administration who helped bpush this thing. But not the Iraqi people.

Now, what Senator Kerry said is somewhat true: the Iraqi government isn't stepping up. They aren't doing their job. However, we've done everything in our power to set them up for failure. We:

• Dismantled the Baathists who were the only ones experienced in running Iraq.
• Sent home the Iraqi military after deposing Hussein, effectively firing a well armed and trained group of young, poor - and now angry - men.
• Bombed their infrastructure.
• Invited insurgents from across Iraq and the world to be there by invading an Arab country without just cause.
• Set up conditions where the population is fleeing, dying and starving.

What do we expect of a country that we just recently blew up to smithereens? Jeffersonian Democracy in six months? Hell, the U.S. Constitution wasn't signed until 1787 - 11 years after Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, the founders didn't have guerrilla warfare to contend with; we were the insurgency. And our insurgency went home after major combat ended at Yorktown. Not to mention, our saviors - the dreaded French - left after they helped depose us from 1775's King George. Imagine what would have happened if the French "helped" and stayed for years? Our insurgency would have continued well past Yorktown. So, yes, it may be humanly possible for the Iraqi government to do more, but lots of things are possible that have yet to come true - even when bombs aren't getting in the way of the path toward accomplishment.

So, Senator Kerry is wrong: it isn't Iraq's fault. But, he's still right, right? He's still calling for us to get out of Iraq, after all. If only that were enough. Sometimes it may not matter how a politician comes to a position so long as he or she gets there, but Iraq isn't one of those occasions. Arguing to get out of Iraq alone isn't going to solve the problem, not when the Iraqi people are being vilified in the process. Saying it's Iraq's fault only continues to set that country up for failure, ignoring the actual problems Iraq faces.

Furthermore, even if the American people buy that message and leave Iraq for those reasons, we'll only serve to further hinder that country's reconstruction, after their civil war is over, through a new-found ignorance. If Iraqis are the evil terrorists Republicans paint them as and the incompetent, greedy and violent neanderthals Democratic leaders seem to be implying, Iraqis will never get the help they need from an American public that owes a great debt to that country. We can't help Iraqis militarily, that only serves to stir up the insurgency, but we can aid and support them in other ways (the ways their populace wants, like food) - but only if our politicians ultimately fail in painting them with villainous strokes. If Iraqis are the villains, Iraqi citizens will get about as much support as we're giving to innocent civilians in the Gaza strip right now.

Senator Kerry is sensible and understands that the process of leaving Iraq will take a long time. He says, during that time span, we need to be doing the diplomacy the Bush administration hasn't done. Certainly, Kerry is right all the way there. But, why do we need to send our troops home? Because the Iraqi government just won't do their jobs until they understand we're leaving, according to Kerry. Maybe he's right, but his opinion is far from conclusive. Even if the Iraqi parliament is petty and incompetent, surely they already understand America won't be there forever and that things can't continue in Iraq as they are now. Furthermore, the Iraqi parliament as a whole is not responsible - and cannot stop - the insurgency that targets America today. Primarily blaming the Iraqi government is insulting to the Iraqi people. Instead of blaming Iraq, here's what Senator Kerry should be arguing for instead:

• We need to start leaving now, because it takes months to safely pull out over 160,000 Americans.
• Iraq - and only Iraq - has the right and ability to decide the fate of their country.

If he does those two things, he'll show that he's not only right on Iraq, but he's a voice of clarity that is capable of truly leading on this issue. He'll be a voice that won't hurt Iraq - or America - down the road. He'll be a voice we desperately need in D.C. today.

File this Under the Common Sense Section

Senators Kerry and Clinton have filed a bill that would require the Pentagon to prepare for the contingency of leaving Iraq. Bush doesn't like plan Bs, Cs or Ds, but I think they can be real assets. Of course, there's more to this story than meets the eye - the administration went on the attack against Clinton for even asking about such a contingency plan. You see, she's helping the terrorists...

This legislative effort is a direct result of Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman's unacceptable response to a Congressional inquiry on a matter of national security to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, asking for the Pentagon to brief the appropriate oversight committees in Congress on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, the Congressional inquiry asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.

The depths to which this administration will stoop...

This is only tangently related, but one of the things I keep hearing more and more is Vietnam being brought up by Republicans in defense of staying in Iraq. Edelman made that kind of asinine comment against Senator Clinton. You see, they say, we need to stay in Iraq so Iraq doesn't become like Vietnam...

Huh? Am I the only person who doesn't get that kind of comment at all? Because staying in countries in the middle of a Civil War is a fantastic idea? Oh, Republicans and their nation building - not to mention fuzzy memories.

Kerry Hopes to Investigate War Profiteering

From a Kerry office press release:

Sen. John Kerry announced today that he is co-sponsoring a wide-ranging plan to finally investigate the scope and range of wasteful spending surrounding the war in Iraq. The bill, which he is co-sponsoring with Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and several other colleagues, would create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. war contracting in Iraq....

The amendment would create a bipartisan commission to study and investigate contracting in support of the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) in 2005, reported that nearly $9 billion spent on Iraq’s reconstruction was unaccounted for, as the result of inefficiencies and bad management. To date, SIGIR has investigated $32 billion in Iraq reconstruction and relief, resulting in arrests, imprisonments, $3.6 million in restitution orders, and $9.5 million in recovered and seized assets. More than 40 individuals and private companies have been suspended, debarred, or proposed for debarment. More than 30 SIGIR investigations await prosecution at the Department of Justice.

I shutter to think about the profiteering we don't know about yet, because the things we have learned doesn't leave a whole lot of room for hope.

Flowery Reports From Iraq

Rarely do I ever watch the telly. Rarer still do I watch the 6 o'clock world news. However, in spending some time with my mother this after, I managed to catch be forced into watching Charles Gibson do today's recitation. Another Republican, he says, has turned coat on Bush. But don't worry, as George Stephanopasdfolis reported, he's not going to do anything as extreme as risk cutting the funding. Meanwhile, after that two minute report, I was barraged with a full segment on how shiny and happy the kids are in Iraq with their new boy scout camp. That's right, a four day boy scout camp in the Green Zone gets about as much play on ABC as the actual length of the camp. Things are looking up. Boy, that surge is really working. Some boys get to go to camp and everything!

The last time I had the 6 o'clock national news on, I was watching Katie Couric. She was telling everyone how great the surge was going too. Her propaganda piece (let's be honest, that's what these are) was about how tough and courageous our troops were, hunting in dangerous areas of Iraq for al Qaeda. Sure, Couric reported, we were giving them a few day's notice in our plot to route them out, but we didn't actually think they'd leave or anything. No mention, meanwhile, of the fact that there would be almost no al Qaeda in Iraq if we didn't invade the country in the first place.

President Bush, Dick Cheney and their pals like to complain about how the media never plays any of the positive stuff going on in Iraq. Well, the past two times I've watched the news, the positive was the bulk of their coverage. Meanwhile, we're quickly moving towards 4,000 dead Americans and god knows how many dead Iraqis - the number is so high, no one can seem to get a firm count. Despite the plethora of propaganda coming from the world's 53rd most free media, Americans are still turning against the Bush administration. Sometimes the people are ahead of the politicians in knowing what's right for the country; it's amazing that can still happen despite just how hard the major networks seem to be trying to keep us in our quagmire with this shoddy coverage.

Senator Kerry Iraq Forum: Leadership

If I could pick one theme from the Natick Town Meeting I attended yesterday, it would be Leadership - or a lack thereof. Senator Kerry laid out, in fairly clear terms, the need for Leadership in the:

• Executive Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Iraqi Government

However, we aren't getting that leadership today. President Bush has shown a complete unwillingness to do any of the steps necessary to ensure peace, a transition or a stable government in Iraq. Bush has run so rampant in that region, he "threatens the legitimacy of our country in almost every single regard," the Senator said.

Kerry wasn't there to mince words - and the people in attendance weren't there to hear anything except exactly what they wanted to hear: get out of Iraq, now. It's no joke, the people are frustrated. Some of those people took it out on the Senator, some of them were just Larouch types and were annoying for the sake of being annoying. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Senator gave a concrete, important exchange on exactly what needs to take place to change course in Iraq.

The verdict? Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. This country needs to start the dialogue between all the players in the region. Kerry said he's talked with all of those leaders and that a willingness exists, it's just that a certain President is too stubborn to try it out. That President was too stubborn to talk to Iran and to groups in Palestinian territory - and look how things have turned out because Bush's inaction.

Furthermore, until the day we go into those negotiations and set a time line for Iraq, the Iraqis are never going to be able to govern themselves. Right now, America is a "scape goat" for some of the factions in Iraq. I probably won't be able to put this as clearly as the Senator, but he made a very strong case: essentially, as long as we're there, we're providing cover for certain forces within Iraq to expect us to solve their problems for them... while they allow their militias to do whatever it is that they want them to do, instead of what needs to be done. If we left, the Senator explained, they'd start the job of actually Leading in Iraq.

Some of the frustration among the people there really came from what I think was anger toward the party for folding, not anything the Senator has done himself. One person, someone who was a "Veteran for Peace," attacked the Senator for standing up and saying the right things when he was younger... then running from them every day since. Kerry said he stands by all those statements today, as he did then, and made a strong defense: he's stood by a time line to get out of Iraq whether he had 5 people voting his way, 14, 48 or 51. Even when it wasn't conventional wisdom, he put his neck on the line and tried to do the right thing. He helped build that coalition to get to 51 - through his actions in the Senate as well as campaigning to get people like Jim Webb elected. He's right.

Obviously, like anyone, the Senator isn't perfect. Maybe during the Presidential election, he took the wrong direction on Iraq. He obviously regretted losing, because of how bad things have really turned out. At one point, when talking about a soldier's funeral he had recently attended, he was visibly upset. However, since losing, he's really been on the front lines arguing for sanity in that country: he, along with people like Senator Kennedy and Finegold, have been the ones pushing for a time line for years now.

So, I was a little taken aback when a few people in the crowd took his 'we need to leave the country in a responsible way' for meaning we need to keep troops in Iraq. The Senator was slightly ambiguous on that one point, but it had more to do with style than content. He should have just simply said, "We have more than 160,000 troops in Iraq. You can't just withdraw them at the snap of a finger, you need some kind of plan."

I'd imagine the people at this forum are just like the people attending these forums across the country, be they at Walnut Hill School or some random town in Kentucky with a population of 200. People want out of Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, and they want out soon - so soon that no words of "responsibility" or "negotiations" will coax them into slowing down.

What the Senator must do is find a way to target this anger into something useful: passion. Like Governor Patrick says, 'if you want something, come and get it.' The people want to leave Iraq - bad - and will work for it, if we have a leader. There are more than 40 Republican Senators who need to be convinced to leave Iraq and hundreds of millions of Americans who should be spearheading that effort. Senator Kerry has helped channel the efforts of an anti-war movement before, when he was a twenty something returning veteran. Now, a powerful Senator with a lifetime of experience, he needs to be that person again. No one is as positioned to be the leader in this country to get us out of Iraq, in a responsible way, than Senator Kerry. I call on him, as my Senator, to be that Leader once again.

Wanted: Decent Presidential Candidate

Reward: My political support (for whatever that counts).

Over and over again, all I keep hearing from everyone is how the Republicans have such a "weak field" and how the Democrats are so inherently stronger. Rubbish. The Republicans have a very bad war, but their candidates are not inherently weaker than our's - because our candidates have been greatly overrated. Name me the one candidate who's truly anti-war, pro-equality and doesn't mince words? Not a single candidate supports marriage equality and our current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who is leading by wide margins in today's polls (which are as meaningful as my political support at this point), was as much of a war hawk as anyone in the Senate. She wants to leave Iraq as much as Senator Lieberman did; let's not make the same mistake as the people of Connecticut and think her pandering is any different than Holy Joe's. Hillary's plan calls to leave troops in Iraq, to 'train' and 'counteract terrorism.' That, my friends, would amount to over a hundred thousand of them in Iraq, permanently.

So, who do we turn to? Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be that much else. Looking for a candidate seems to be reminiscent of those commercials from that Christian charity organization, showing the family searching the garbage heaps for some hidden treasure - when the far greater likelihood is they will be met with useless stink. For a while, the Obama buzz was really buzzing. Now, it seems more like the buzzing noise are flies surrounding a political carcass. The man never won a tough election - and it shows.

However, I could deal with inept campaign moves - heck, sometimes they can be endearing. When John Edwards has screwed up, he kinda looks cute. 'Whoops, sorry guys, you caught me building a real, big house.' It sort of reminded me when my Governor, the very progressive and awesome Deval Patrick, was lambasted by his campaign opponent for building a nice house. That campaign opponent got big media excitement for calling it the "Taj Deval," while he was firmly whooped in the actual primary. Edwards's house may have gotten bad press, but anyone can relate to someone who grew up poor wanting a very, very nice house... so those words fall on deaf ears, especially when every man (and woman) running for President owns a very, very nice house.

The real problem here isn't stupid moves. Like I said, I could deal with a few stupid Obama mistakes. However, it's these kinds of mistakes that really get me. Here's a gist of what Americablog had to say,

I never thought I'd have to be calling out Barack Obama for race-baiting, but herewe are. And he's not race-baiting whites, or Asians, or even Latinos. No, the African-American Senator from Illinois is race-baiting dark-skinned people. (A bit like me race-baiting Mediterraneans.)

And sure enough, the Obama memo talks a good deal about outsourcing, though in ways that do seem to skirt the line of racism or at least xenophobia (calling her "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)") and noting that "Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian 'Techies.'" (I was a bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "Indian" over and over and over again in the memo.) But I still wasn't sure that we had moved from outsourcing to racism until we hit the paragraph about all the money and support that Hillary has received from "Indian Americans." Sure, the rest of the memo deals with how one of Hillary's top Indian-American supporters is allegedly a bit shady, and that's fair game, but the memo is about more than that. The memo is clearly trying to make the point that Hillary gets lots and lots of support from Indian-Americans, and apparently there's some kind of problem with that. I guess because their kin back home are stealing all of our good white jobs. (No word on whether they're sleeping with our women too.)

This is more than a stupid mistake. This is, well, revealing. I'm not even going to pin this on Obama himself, but even if this came from his campaign people it's disturbing. First, these are the guys he is hiring - that does not inspire confidence. Second, it truly invokes the win-at-all-cost-now attitude that Obama has created for himself during this entire campaign. He didn't want to create a large Senate record - so he's running now. He's afraid of, well, standing on the issues - and it shows. Not to mention the fact that he's convienantly the "anti-war" candidate without ever making so much as a peep before he decided to run for President. Just as bad, as a minority who's likely had to deal with racism at some point in his life, he refused to truly support glbt-equality by not standing up for gay marriage.

Clearly, Barack Obama doesn't want my support. However, John Edwards - a man who is bleeding his support in the polls - has little in the way of credentials and while solidly anti-war, just 'isn't there yet' on marriage equality. The real weird thing here is he supports the repeal of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act - which would effectively create marriage equality by mandating every state honor marriages from Massachusetts. Is it some sort of code that Edwards is using? I'll be honest, I don't want a President who speaks in tongues. If you fully support equality, don't shy away from it - embrace it.

Governor Bill Richardson's poll numbers are improving - and, in many ways, they should be. Out of all the candidates in this race, his credentials are by far the most impeccable. He's been the Ambassador to the United Nations - clearly someone who would make a great President-Diplomat and could do a lot to restore the leadership of this country around the world. In just the last few years, he's made deals in both Darfur and North Korea. The day Richardson would be elected, Iraq would be all but over. He's the popular Governor of New Mexico - and helped make a good deal of progress in that state. He was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy and has a decent track record on green issues.

Furthermore, he's wined and dined with the likes of the Human Rights Campaign, the highest-funded GLBT rights organization, but his record sadly doesn't match his rhetoric. When Richardson was a Congressman - did I mention he was a Congressman yet? - he voted for the most vile piece of homophobic legislation ever, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the reason why people with a same-sex marriage or civil union can't, for example, receive federal benefits - like filing federal taxes together. It's why if one partner dies, when he or she worked for the Federal Government, the other won't receive that partner's pension, like any married couple would. It's why gay citizens can't bring their married immigrants to this country. The worst part of this whole thing is that Governor Richardson still sticks by that vote today.

So, who? Mike Gravel? Good on gay rights and Iraq, crazy as a bed-bug - he wants the freaking Flat Tax. He wants English as the Official Language. Don't even start about Kucinich: one of America's worst mayors ever, and while the fact that he believes weird mystical crap isn't really a problem, the fact that he'd turn that into a new Federal Department is a big one. Oh, and he was pro-life until the day he first ran for President - even a man with no chance panders.

There isn't a single candidate in this race that inspires me. There isn't a single candidate who's built a true netroot following, either. The candidates, this year, have divided everyone - none of the major blogs seem to be all that supportive of anyone. Barrack Obama could have so easily been that person, but his friendship with Joe Lieberman clearly made an impact - and not the good kind. If someone had a gun pointed to my head today, I'd vote for John Edwards. Let's just say, I'm proud to be in favor of gun control, because this race is really starting to scare me - hence, the Wanted Sign.

Cross posted at Progress Now

Lynne Posts MA-05 Iraq War Forum!

They're over on her website, but on the way to it go to MyDD.com and hit recommend so we can get these videos seen by thousands. The kind of work Lynne just did to get this forum online is exactly the reason why the blogosphere is so great. There was no serious media coverage of the Iraq War forum by any of the large Boston papers; thanks to Lynne's hard work hundreds or even thousands of people will get to shine a light on the candidates' opinions and plans on the Iraq war and military in general.

Thanks Lynne!

Sen. Kerry Forum on Iraq

Karen, a reader, let me know that her town committee is hosting a forum on the Iraq war with Senator Kerry.

Here's the key info:

Metrowest Community Forum on Iraq with Sen. John Kerry
Hosted by the Natick Democratic Town Committee
Saturday, June 16, 2007
3:30-5:30pm (doors open at 3:30; program starts promptly at 4:00pm)
Walnut Hill School
12 Highland St.Natick

It sounds like a really great opportunity. Say what you want about Kerry's presidential campaign, but ever since he's lost he's mostly found himself - at least on key issues like the Iraq war. I'm going to seriously consider going myself, even if it is a bit of a hike for me. It should be well worth it.

On a side note, I love getting information like this. It's what the blogosphere is all about: not just some person preaching info, but a real dialogue. Feel free to email me this kind of info, or even just to express your thoughts on an issue, post or what's a really good burrito joint in the North Shore. I love feedback and personal emails.

John Kerry: Living in Bizarro Land

Having only finished the first paragraph of this non-stunner, I've come to a very sad conclusion. But first, the paragraph that prompted the thought.

Senator John F. Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 after weighing the political ramifications and being told by his future campaign manager that he would never be elected president in 2004 unless he sided with President Bush on the issue, according to a forthcoming book by Kerry's former strategist.

Only in Bizarro Land could John Kerry - an honored veteran, turned important operator of peace on his way home - become a pro-war candidate. How sad it is this dimension we call home is in fact Bizarro Land, where insane things that just don't make any sense happen every day.

And what a shame it is. John Kerry could have been the man to have ended this war two years ago - if he just stood up and spoke his mind when he had the chance. Instead, we've suffered two years under Mad Man "Mr. 28%" Bush - with another two years yet to come.

If Kerry had just stood on his principals during the presidential election, hundreds of soldiers would be saved and the billions we've poured into Iraq could have been used on something productive - like health care for every child in this country.

Yet, here we are today - in the middle of another Presidential campaign. The leading candidate, Senator Clinton, is a war hawk. She wants to get us out of Iraq about as badly as Senator Joe Lieberman claimed during his last election - which is to say, she'll pay it lip service, but behind the scenes will vehemently oppose it. The candidate with the second largest chance, Senator Obama, isn't much better.

Democrats will do well to learn from Mr. Shrum, Kerry's former strategist and pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to democrats ever. If he thinks it's a good idea, run away - far away - from whatever that position is. People want out of Iraq - and they want it now. No more of this center-right bullshit; the rise of the progressive movement has long since arrived.

Let's Spend a Moment on Iraq and Other...

Inept columnists, from different newspapers. Any0ne read this pile of crap today, comparing Attorney General Gonzales to Senate President Reid? Well, apparently David Broder thinks political "ineptitude" is as bad as, well, potentially breaking the law and compromising the entire judicial system by firing attorneys for purely political reasons. However, what's more revealing is the dirth of stuff Broder has on Reid. Broder is angry about Reid's Iraq position, but the majority of America agrees that the war in Iraq is lost. So, instead of arguing on the merits, Broder just launches a bunch of old political gaffes at Harry Reid and basically says "see! see!"

Well, I see nothing - other than a typical politician. However, Harry Reid is very right about Iraq. There's no way to "win" Iraq - what are our goals, anyway? Who are we fighting? Can we "win" a war in Iraq - for Iraqi independence - if the people we're fighting in Iraq are, well, Iraqis? And are we fighting against Shiites or Sunnis? Every day it changes, depending on which group of angry 'constituents' (after all, we're building a Jeffersonian Democracy here) sets off a bomb by an American Humvee. Broder has nothing, otherwise he'd be answering some of these questions and criticizing Reid for not doing so. That's why, in order to change public opinion, he's just going back on old stories Reid has long since apologized for.

A Deadline Has Been Set!

By the House, now the Senate just needs to pass it. Of course, President Bush will likely veto, but he will do so at his own peril.

Vennochi: End the War. Now!

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to actually lead on this issue, she says. She does ignore two teensy problems facing Democrats, though: a Senate filibuster and a Presidential veto. Even so, she's right. Democrats need to continue to step up and demand out of Iraq - ASAP. At the very least, the House's current proposed August 2008 pullout is a price too steep.

Vennochi's words:

Lawmakers are galvanized by the firing of eight federal prosecutors who worked under Gonzales. They are demanding public testimony from White House aides, including Karl Rove. The White House is resisting, setting up a showdown over executive privilege.The political sideshow proceeds with gusto, with all parties committed to their usual roles.

When it comes to ending a war that has taken 3,223 American lives since it began four years ago, Congress is paralyzed, not galvanized, even with Democrats in control.

In other words, it's time to get tough on the toughest issue facing America: the war in Iraq.

Don't Just Support the Troops - Save the Troops

I read this today - and really loved it.

"Support our troops" is a once-meaningful phrase that has been hollowed out and stripped of all meaning. Like "freedom" and "democracy," like "victory" and "success," it's a flimsy phrase connoting not its original meaning, but the dog-whistle politics of its speaker.

Republicans have used the phrase to attack everything from non-binding resolutions to Representative Murtha's funding proposal to revoking the war authorization. Their goal is to put Democrats on the defensive, to goad them into a response which falsely suggests to the American people that "supporting the troops" is actually up for debate.

And Democrats, all too often, willingly walk into that trap. There is no such debate on the issue of supporting our troops. The debate we're about to have--the debate we need to have--is about much more than yellow ribbons on SUVs and red faced rants of treason on the Senate floor. It's not just about supporting our troops, whatever that phrase means at whatever politically opportune moment that hollow phrase is uttered.

It's about saving them.

Go and read the whole thing, I just touched on the surface of the post.

We all support the troops. I don't know one person who's placing the blame of Iraq's disastrous consequences on the troops - it's all about the people who planned and implemented this tragedy. However, to say that Democrats can't move to block funding of the army because it somehow isn't supporting the troops is intellectually dishonest at best. It's not about supporting the troops - it's about saving them.

Anyone who argues otherwise wants to keep the troops there longer, where more of them will be maimed and die in the thousands. The ones who survive will come home to hospitals that can't care for them and will be scorned if they try to receive the mental treatment they need.

How is that supporting the troops?