Barak Obama: On Shooting at Allies
I urge you all to read this long post by Barak Obama in his diary at Daily Kos. Some of you will be put-off by his views. Some will pray, and contribute, for his further rise in the Democratic party.
There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.
September 30th, 2005 @ 9:42 am
Anybody who has been reading my recent posts may be surprised to learn that I agree with him - we shouldn’t part company with each other just because we disagree on an issue or two… or five. An important part of what makes us progressives is that we are free thinkers who respect and value diversity and have a good deal of tolerance for different points of view.
BUT, and you knew there would be a but, when one of our leaders, no matter how long and distinuished his record of fighting for progressive causes, goes silent, withdraws into a shell, starts supporting the opposition’s policies, begins speaking out AGAINST several progressive ideas, then maybe it is time to see if we can’t find somebody who is more representative of our views.
And when the entire leadership of the Democratic party fails to articulate a progressive vision or provide any real leadership in a time of crisis for our country, is there any reason for us to remain loyal to the party as it is and not seek better leaders and party reform? I don’t think so. In fact, if we are to have a true working democracy, it is IMPERATIVE that we do so.
If Obama is suggesting that we remain loyal Democrats despite the abject failure of the party to provide leadership on progressive causes, he is doing nothing but advance the Republican concept that we are a divided nation of loyal partisans, rival tribes, fighting to the death over control of America.
October 1st, 2005 @ 8:49 am
FOCUS: Juan Cole | America Speaks: Will the Democratic Party Listen?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100105Z.shtml
Even Democrats who are not veterans of Iraq need to find the courage to speak out on the war if they are effectively to challenge the Republicans. Simply waiting around for things to get worse in Baghdad is a dangerous strategy, not so much because the situation is likely to improve any time soon but because the American people want real leadership on this issue and they know they are not getting it from Bush.
October 1st, 2005 @ 8:51 am
Lynn Woolsey - one Democrat we can be proud of.
This note came from Ed Mainland, with Woolsey’s letter.
We have to keep reminding people that many conservatives want out of Iraq just as much as anyone. This is not a “liberal” deal. Odom, Prebble and Jones (below) are certified conservatives who have seen the light. Wonder how Joe Nation will react to Woolsey’s leadership on this issue? Maybe someone should ask. — Ed M.
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey”
Date: September 29, 2005 1:25:35 PM PDT
To:
Subject: National Security Experts Support Iraq Exit Strategy
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency and Dr. Christopher Prebble, head of the CATO Institute’s foreign policy section joined U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (Petaluma), Walter Jones (NC), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Neil Abercrombie (HI), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Marty Meehan (MA) and Barbara Lee (CA) in supporting legislation to announce support of an Iraq exit strategy. The legislation, “Homeward Bound,” calls on President Bush to announce a timetable by the end of the 2005, for beginning the return of U.S. troops from Iraq by October 1, 2006.
Woolsey was the first Member of Congress to call for U.S. troops to return from Iraq by introducing H.Con.Res. 35 that calls on the President to immediately develop a plan for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. On May 25, she led the first debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives regarding troop withdrawal. The Woolsey Amendment received 128 votes - including the votes of five Republicans. Most recently, she led an informal hearing on Capitol Hill where a panel of experts discussed strategies to achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society.
The following are Congresswoman Woolsey’s words as written for the “Homeward Bound” press conference on Capitol Hill:
“Good morning. I want to thank Lieutenant General Odom and Dr. Prebble for joining us today. Their appearance here, with a bipartisan group of members, demonstrates the broad support that exists for a military withdrawal from Iraq.
“Two and a half years, 2000 American lives and 200 billion dollars is enough. Especially for a war whose rationale turned out to be a fraud, one that has ignited a vicious insurgency and made Americans less safe than they were before. It’s time to support our troops by bringing them home to their families.
“No committee chairs were willing to exercise their oversight responsibilities on Iraq, so two weeks ago, I held the first Congressional hearing designed to explore Iraq exit strategies.
“We went beyond the “why” of troop withdrawal to discuss the “how”. We heard from a broad range of Middle East scholars and military experts about how we can end the war while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society.
“All of us believe that we must remain engaged, but as a partner to a sovereign Iraq, not an occupying power. Whatever the next steps are, they must not involve permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, nor U.S. control of Iraqi oil. The idea behind my hearing was to fill a policy vacuum, to jumpstart a conversation that the nation wants and deserves.
“The American people, two-thirds of whom favor partial or complete military withdrawal, are frankly way ahead of the government officials on this issue. I figured it was about time we caught up.
“The Administration had no plan for how to conduct the war; they had no plan for securing the country once Saddam was deposed; and now they have no plan for a viable and compassionate exit strategy.
“So if they won’t do it, we’ll do it for them. I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting H.J. Res. 55. Our troops have sacrificed enough. They deserve to be homeward bound.”
You are receiving this email because you are a subscriber on our web site. Click here to unsubscribe
http://www.woolsey.house.gov/Unsubscribepage.asp?SubscriberTID=7124
October 1st, 2005 @ 10:20 am
Good point, Jack. Too many of us on the left feel like we “own” the anti-war issue - “all” liberals want an end to the war, and “all” conservatives are pro-war. Thus, when key Republican Senators and Congressmen come out in favor of bringing the troops home, we pretty much ignore them or treat them like they are trying to steal our thunder.
I would remind everybody that Sen Chuck Hegel came out with a statement a couple of months ago that the continued occupation of Iraq was weakening US National security, that the war was unwinnable, that the continued presence of our troops was making the situation worse, not improving things. This statemenbt was as close to the Ruthgroup anti-war resolution as anything we have seen from any government source, Democrat or Republican. It was a MUCH, MUCH better anti-war statement than anything we have seen from the Clintons, Kerry, and other Democratic leaders, and personally I think it was better in it’s recognition that the war was unwinnable than anything from such Democratic stalwarts as Boxer and Woolsey.
YET, ASIDE FROM A BRIEF MENTION IN ONE OR TWO OF MY POSTS, HEGEL’S STATEMENT WAS TOTALLY IGNORED ON THE RUTHGROUP WEBSITE!!
Some liberals will probably try to ignore this one too - after all these conservatives don’t have a withdrawal plan and don’t advocate an immediate withdrawal - they just want to end the occupation and avoid building permanent bases.
Come on folks - get real. The war is not a partisan issue. It’s not an election issue 3 years from now, or even next year. It’s not a way to win back control of Congress. It’s not even about Bush anymore.
Focus on ending this war for one reason and one reason only - it’s immoral and illegal and it’s destroying the United States of America. Accept all the help you can get in accomplishing this goal. There are plenty of good Republicans out there that hate this war as much as we do and some of them are speaking out more clearly than Democrats. Only the Bush loyalists, those who are determined to support everything he does no matter what, are still in favor of this war. We can end it if we just keep our focus where it belongs and don’t try to play political games with a national tragedy.
October 1st, 2005 @ 5:49 pm
thanks, Jack and Bill. Barak is certainly a charismatic fellow, just as Edwards was, but we have to think of them as something like the girl in the car ad — sex appeal thrown in to disguise the banality of the actual produt. I cant see any evidence in Obama’s words that suggests the Democrats have changed their position on anything important, and frankly I dont care a fig for their “progressive” heritage. That heritage, if it exists at all, seems to vanish as soon as they get to Washington.
We need a 12-step program for disillusioned Democrats, so that we can detoxify ourselves and get on with life.
October 2nd, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
At this point I think its terrifying to see how deliberate are the neo-con moves to Federalize and move all the power solidly under the control of the President, the Executive Branch of government, with no real cause, or for trumped up reasons. The CIA was not a failure, the executive was the failure under 911 and other events. With Katrina, the executive was a failure for withholding authority from FEMA, a civilian disaster relief organization. Yet they would move command and control to the Pentagon for so-called disasters or emergencies. They annoint Judge Roberts, a strong proponent of putting unbridled power in the hands of the executive - a trojan horse on the Supreme Court, who allows torture at the president’s whim.
I can’t help but conclude that the lack of noise by Democrats, who by now should be shutting down Congress, is a sign of their collusion in dismantling our democracy, what little is left.
How is it that these neocon and neoliberal traitorous political shepherds “crying wolf,” for the umpteenth time are still able to herd the American sheeple through a maze of self-destruction? Do they not see that even these traitors are bound, by unforgiving historic strands of mutual dependency, to the health and well-being of our citizens. If the “sheep” go over a cliff, the “shepherds” will not be far behind.
What we need now are true patriots, regardless of political persuasion. The collaborators in power feed on the foreign interventionist policies of nationalism, the same as imperialism, and centralized control.
I read the other day, an article about what we need to do in the middle-east to drain the anti-democratic swamp in the middle east. Great suggestion. Perhaps we should drain our own “swamp” here at home first. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050926/how_to_drain_the_swamp.php
Jack Kaplan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_100205X.shtml
Go to Original
GOP Senators Look to Shift Spy Management from CIA
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Saturday 01 October 2005
Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence want to strip from the CIA its primary role as manager of overseas collection of human intelligence, suggesting that Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte take over that responsibility.
October 2nd, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
Barbara Lee:
A true American Patriot who “gets it” and who is courageous enough to say “it”.
Why haven’t the Democrats and other concerned politicians shut down the Congress until they get a disclaimer from the neocons and Bushevites that the 14 planned bases for Iraq under the Project For A New American Century is against their intentions, and will not be pursued, and that all actions toward implementation shall be immediately suspended?
Especially tell me where are the Democrats? Regardless of what Barak Obama said. Remember Obama voted for that atrocious bankruptcy bill that would not even give a break to victims of natural disasters, or who are out of luck because of excessive health care bills.
Sometimes people with vision need to take a stand until everyone else “gets it!”
Jack Kaplan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100105X.shtml
Go to Original
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2323/
Permanent Occupation
By Rep. Barbara Lee
In These Times
Thursday 29 September 2005
No one disputes that the military bases are of a physically permanent character. The only question is whether Iraq will be under permanent US military occupation.
If you are inclined to believe the president, we will be in Iraq, in his words “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.” Members of the Bush administration, including the president, have been at pains to dispel any notion that they have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq.
On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”
On February 17, 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, said, “We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”
The circumstances on the ground, however, tell another story. On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported on the construction of 14 “enduring bases” in Iraq. The May 22, 2005, Washington Post described the military’s plan to consolidate military personnel in Iraq into four massive “contingency operating bases.” According to the Congressional Research Service, Emergency Supplemental funds appropriated for military construction in Iraq for fiscal years 2001–2005 total more than $805 million, with the vast majority, more than $597 million, coming in the 2005 fiscal year.
Anyone familiar with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) should be skeptical about the administration’s claims that it does not have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq. PNAC, many of whose founders, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, went on to serve in the Bush administration, p