And ralpheh- by saying I'm not anti DLC, I suppose I should be a bit more honest with you.
I made a donation to them, just this week.
So, I'm pro DLC.
But I still reserve the right to detest Joe Lieberman, who shouldn't be allowed in any organization with the word Democrat in it, and to not trust Joe Biden. Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill, unless I'm wrong.
Just because they're members of the club doesn't make the whole club bad.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 11, 2005 10:01 PM
The last time I was at the DLC website, several weeks ago now, I looked up their "policy/position" on the Iraq war. There was no subheading for "Iraq Policy" - I had to wade through what they called "National Security and Foreign Policy". After wading through this material, I could not find the word "Iraq" or "war" or "occupation". They completely ignored the biggest issue facing the country!!
This is why I cannot support Hillary or Biden if they are nominated in 2008.
sparrow said:
mkh...
Has this information been posted at other blogs too?
Including the phone number from yesterday?
madame defarge said:
Looks like Rover isn't out of the woods yet and won't be for anytime soon...So, any bets on just how big a rat Scooter is? Will he save some of his own hide and squeal on Rover or will he protect Rover at any cost? The article quoted here has a very good summary of the whole case and especially the Scooter-Rover connection.
(BTW, I hope Patrick Fitzgerald is nominated for Time's Man of the Year for 2005.)
Libby Testimony Is Key To Rove Inquiry
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delayed a decision on whether to seek criminal charges against Karl Rove in large part because he wants to determine whether Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, can provide information on Rove's role in the CIA leak case, according to attorneys involved in the investigation.
--snip--
The ongoing investigation means that Rove's legal status is likely to remain up in the air until the final disposition of Libby's case. That could be two years from now, or even longer. Rove's predicament contradicts recent news accounts indicating that Fitzgerald will conclude his probe of Rove in the near future.
--snip--
If Libby strikes a plea bargain, he would likely agree as part of any deal to provide information to prosecutors that had some bearing on Rove and other Bush administration officials, according to attorneys involved in the case. Even if no plea bargain occurs, a federal grand jury could compel Libby to testify about others under a grant of immunity. If he still refused to testify, Libby could then be jailed for civil contempt, or charged anew with criminal contempt or obstruction of justice.
--snip--
The indictment states that on July 10 or 11, "Libby spoke to a senior official in the White House (Official A) who advised Libby of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with ... Novak, in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife."
Attorneys involved in the CIA leak case confirm that Official A refers to Rove.
Also central to Fitzgerald's investigation are allegations that Rove purposely misled the FBI in October 2003 and the federal grand jury in February 2004, when he failed to disclose a July 11, 2003, conversation with Cooper about Plame, according to sources knowledgeable about the matter.
--snip--
So, is Fitzgerald's slow pace in completing his investigation of Rove an instance of prosecutorial zealousness, and is Rove being singled out because of his power and status?
Katy Harriger, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University, who has authored two books on special prosecutors, says that Fitzgerald's open-ended case on Rove is no different from what any ordinary prosecutor would do with any defendant. "It is fairly routine that you are not going to be clearing someone until you hear from a central witness, even if it means [that it takes you] two years to clear your other case before you hear them."
--snip--
Stan Brand, a Washington defense lawyer who has specialized in representing clients in high-profile political cases and before special prosecutors, says that "while it is not a good thing for anyone to be hung out to dry during a criminal investigation," Fitzgerald has shown himself to be a prosecutor who "has come to the case with no predisposition and no political bent."
Any damned fool with a modicum of ability to observe and hear knew The Cretin was lying in the 2000 debates when he said he wouldn't do any nation building. I knew he was lying then, and I know he's been lying to the people of this nation (and the world) on a daily basis... every time he opens his mouth, in fact.
And here (below) is yet another speech with a paragraph designed to keep sheeples silent and not question his reasons for attacking Iraq....
No one's rewriting history. The Cretin's reasons for starting a war based on LIES is being questioned, and always has been questioned by anyone with half a working cell in their brain....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13
Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Nov 11, 2005
President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they're undercutting America's forces on the front lines.
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.
Ralpheh-
I have been a big Kerry backer for many years, though didn't agree with him (or anyone) every single thing.. I can now see that you really do your research & your voice is needed for conscience, to temper with pragmatism for winning. We need the moral value of knowing we're striving for peace, not "exporting democracy" or some other ridiculous but superficially lofy-sounding ideal. The Republicans are out-donating the Democrats. We need to help Howard Dean at the DNC to attract large donors on one hand and keep the new small donors (who tend to be very progressive) on the other. We are brainstorming this here in Seattle.
NonnyO
What is Bush talking about - rewriting the history of how the war began - Richard C Clarke worked for 4 administrations and told us already. It's the Bushites who are revisionistts. Their strategy would only have potential if the mass of people paid more attention to history and I don't think they do. Unless gas is cheaper and people are getting raises, many will be skeptial. & it's too late for the war to have a fast food ending (immediate gratification of "mission accomplished").
Watch Bush head to Asia. Already Westerners have to watch out if staying in posh hotels & I can just see him in Mongolia, heavily jet-lagged and politely trying to choke down yak butter tea or something.
Just talked to a young friend in Paris for a long time. He said that it's similar to US in that some people in the country where there are no terrorists and not likely to be any spend about 40% of their income on their car - then they support the rightwing because their car could get burnt up. It reminded both of us of people in rural North Dakota or Kansas, etc. who vote for the rightwing when their own leading edge is keeping us safe from terror. Do people THINK?!
My ISP had a bunch of cable fry on them a week ago, then I needed a new modem because it fried, then when they got those two problems resolved, they had other provisioning problems.
They just put this cable in in August, and many of the techs here are very new at this. It has been a learning experience for them.
I called Suz to see what the latest news was politically a couple of times.
I'm back in the saddle again
Out where a friend is a friend
Where the prairie dogs feed
And where "weed" IS just a weed
Back in the saddle again
Ridin' the prairie once more
Totin' my old .44
Where I read and learn at night
To distinguish wrong from right
Back in the saddle again
NonnyO said:
What is Bush talking about - rewriting the history of how the war began - Richard C Clarke worked for 4 administrations and told us already. It's the Bushites who are revisionistts.
Do people THINK?!
Posted by: DiAnne at November 12, 2005 02:59 PM
Yes, DiAnne, I did know it's the Bushites who are the "revisionists"... read LIARS.... And, he's still trying to keep the sheeples from speaking out against him. (Sounds like a speech written by Karen Hughes, doesn't it???)
The part that gets to me is that people do NOT think, and some people still believe The Cretin and his White House.... I don't get it....! Or else more people know he lied than the pollsters are telling us and the pollsters are the ones giving us all the false impression that he still even has any support. I don't know why the people who still support him aren't reported in something like a five or ten percent category....
IMHO, the sheeples who are so easily led astrary just aren't paying attention.... And, no, I do not believe for one second that the majority of people are thinking at all. If they were, the Selection of 2000 would never have happened, nor would the stolen election of 2004....
We will have eight bad years to atone for, even if we did not support this administration in any way, shape, or form, and have been revolted and disgusted all along with their behavior toward our fellow human beings regarding war and torture. Words have not yet been invented to explain how sick at heart I feel whenever I read about The Cretin's war and his (and his administration's) policy of torture. I don't have words to express how adamantly opposed I am to those views held by The Cretin and his administration. That's the worst of it, and then the other horrors he and his administration have visited on this country with the corporate cronies only getting richer while the poor are getting poorer are right behind that....
I take for granted that every time The Cretin opens his mouth he will lie, and the next time he opens his mouth he will lie to justify his original lies.... That's a given....
And that's why god invented the Mute button on the remote... and if one's eyes can't stand the lying body language, one can change channels or hit the Off button.... and go read a good book, or make art, or surf the net, or....
One bit of good news to momentarily forget the horrors of The Cretin's administration: The little girl panda at the San Diego Zoo is named Su Lin... "A Little Bit of Something Very Cute."
Linda Enterkin said:
ralpheh- I understand that I'm a bit more moderate than a lot of people on here. I wouldn't have picked Kerry to be our candidate at all in 2004, but I did support him in every way I could. I guess it depends on your meaning of "support." I do hope you don't mean you wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Biden in '08.
I've said I won't "support" any Democratic candidate who doesn't admit this war was a mistake. That includes Hillary and whoever else might run, but I'll certainly vote for them. I just know that I'll have a lot of trouble being as active as I was for Kerry in 2004- a lot of us worked our butts out here in the red states and felt that the campaign, and even the candidate, let us down in many ways. I know Kerry did his best, but there were just statements that he made during the campaign that made no sense to the people in my part of the country, and it's very hard to work around those things and find any kind of success. I don't think that by 2008 any of our Democratic candidates will be saying anything OTHER than this war was a disastrous mistake, and if they do, I'll go vote, but I'll stay home for the campaigning.
As far as me giving to the DLC goes- I'm a Clintonite, through and through, and one reason I supported Wes Clark was because he was Bill Clinton's candidate last year. There were rumors to that effect, and they were right. At least, judging from the fact that the jet he flew into Pensacola on was owned by none other than our former president. Also, his advance team was made up of nearly all former Clinton aides. It was pretty obvious at the time who Bill Clinton backed.
I know the DLC has fallen out of favor over the last couple of years, but IMHO, and probably in the opinions of only a very few others on here, a moderate course is the only one that I think will lead us into the White House again. I thought that last year when I chose the candidate that I originally supported, and I think the election basically proved my point. I know a lot of people disagree, and they have a right to. Most of them don't live in the reddest area of a red state though.
And being moderate doesn't mean supporting this war. I detest this war, but that doesn't make me a liberal. Centrists really do have opinions- we're not just sitting on the fence. We just don't take a singular view towards every issue. We can be pretty much against war, as I am, and pro death penalty at the same time.
I know that's infuriating, but it's just the very confused and contrary way our minds work :-)
I really do hope you'd still vote for Hillary though. Even if you couldn't campaign for her.
Biden is a creepy liar, but I'd even vote for him over a Repug. I still want an Edwarsds/Schumer ticket though.
Sometimes we can't have the perfect so we settle for the good. I'd rather compromise than lose out altogether. And we REALLY lost a lot the last two elections. I don't know if this country can ever be the same again.
Frank Rich on the 'flagrant embrace of torture'
In his Sunday column in the New York Times, Frank Rich excoriates the Bush Administration's "prewar propaganda blitzkrieg" and it's policies on torture, RAW STORY has learned.
Carter critisizes Bush. (A rare thing to have TWO Presidents critisizing policy of the current pResident!(Actually three...I believe I heard even dear old dad isn't too pleased with sonny-boy!)
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 05:52 PM
Linda,
We have a full spectrum of people over here--moderate Republicans to Left Dems.
You're not the only moderate by a long shot, but I believe the purpose of the DCP is to learn about many things--government, policy, issues, democracy--and then for all of us to teach others as well.
I think we have to find a way to unite all of our various ideas, teach compromise, or at least teach how to unite instead of divide.
In a way, we're learning to become activists but also diplomats.
How am I doing so far?
(ok...ok..I probably shouldn't have asked!)
Linda Enterkin said:
sparrow- I know there are other moderates on here- I was just replying to what ralpheh said about the fact that I donate to the DLC on occasion.
You're doing fine so far.. :-)
I wasn't angry, just replying.
I don't even think ralpheh was angry- he was just saying that the DLC doesn't have any set policy about the war. I think that's because its members have a lot of different opinions on the war, but they share the one trait of being moderate to progressive Democrats.
I can support pretty much any Democrat my party nominates, with only a few exceptions. (joe lieberman, joe lieberman, and oh, did I mention Joe Lieberman). Who is a toad and a closet Republican.
Hope your Saturday is going well......
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could ³validate² the President¹s war on terror and allow Bush to ³unite the country² in a ³time of national shock and sorrow.²The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it¹s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are ³blue sky thinking² that often occurs in political planning sessions.
³The President¹s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,² admits one aide. ³Americans band together at a time of crisis.²
Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.
³We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,² says a longtime GOP strategist. ³That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.²
The memo outlines other scenarios, including:
--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);
--A drastic turnaround in the economy;
--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.
GOP memos no longer talk of ³victory² in Iraq but use the term ³successful resolution.²
³A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,² says one insider.
The memo circulates as Tuesday¹s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.
³This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,² grumbles one Bush administration aide. ³Everybody¹s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.²
Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.
³Cooler heads tried to prevail,² one aide says. ³Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.²
Bush didn¹t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President¹s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday. Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.
The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in
California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.
³In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I¹ve never seen such a freefall in public support,² admits one GOP pollster. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message any message that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
³We¹ve made our bed with these people,² admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. ³Now it¹s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.²
sparrow said:
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
Phew!!!
Linda my Saturday is much better than my Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
³In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I¹ve never seen such a freefall in public support,² admits one GOP pollster. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message any message that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
³We¹ve made our bed with these people,² admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. ³Now it¹s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.²
Posted by: Fe at November 12, 2005 07:08 PM
Last fall, I noticed that the rural areas of each state highly contributed very heavily to the success or failure rate of the candidates and issues.
I recounted votes last fall in several states according to the numbers CNN had on each precinct, and was quite surprised to see GOP wins, especially since it looked pretty good for the Dems until I painstakingly went through several states and added all the rural votes by precinct.
Could this be a ploy by Repugs to give Dems a sense of false security?
The urban areas as we know are more inclined to be more progressive and vote Dem, but the collective votes of thousands of rural American voters took the right to sucess, precinct by precinct.
I wonder if Rove is spinning this because everything I have read recently states the decline in the polls for Bush are not due to his base, but rather due to the fact that the Independents and Moderates are swinging left right now.
sparrow said:
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 12, 2005 08:14 PM
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
I did think you sounded angry. But I'm glad to hear that your not.
Personally, I don't really know much about the DLC and really don't want to learn.
I look at it like this: it's a label. Labels are bad. It's like a kid at school being labeled as ld and it follows him for the rest of his life. He may be ld in reading but be an incredible genius in Math and science.
The DLC is a group of people who have some things they agree with each other about and other things they don't.
The Left D, may have elements of DLC or the Greens.
AND believe it or not, many of us still have Republican (of old) values...like fiscal responsibility, accountablility in government, etc...
So today...let's rip off those labels, start a fire, and burn them to ashes.
We're not moderate, lefties, greenies, socialists, commies or whatever label people want to use to make us different. Instead, we are all here together fighting, fighting hard, to take back our democracy from a group of amoral and immoral thugs.
I woukd take anything out of the WH with a grain pf salt. Wait, a warehouse of salt. But that would be about EVERYTHING, not just this memo or while they're on the losing side right now.
I think like you do, and believe that this may be a way to assess what the oppos has in terms of strength going in to mid-terms. So keep nose to grindstone and don't give way one inch. It's not over yet by a long yard.
ralpheh said:
ralpheh- I understand that I'm a bit more moderate than a lot of people on here. I wouldn't have picked Kerry to be our candidate at all in 2004, but I did support him in every way I could. I guess it depends on your meaning of "support." I do hope you don't mean you wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Biden in '08.
I've said I won't "support" any Democratic candidate who doesn't admit this war was a mistake. That includes Hillary and whoever else might run, but I'll certainly vote for them. I just know that I'll have a lot of trouble being as active as I was for Kerry in 2004- a lot of us worked our butts out here in the red states and felt that the campaign, and even the candidate, let us down in many ways.
Hope your Saturday is going well......
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
If a pro-war candidate is nominated by the Democrats in 2008 (I do not care if it is HIllary, or Biden, or Schumer or Lieberman etc....) I will not volunteer for him/her; I will not contribute money to him/her (I will give my money and time to anti-war Democrats running for Congress). The question for me is would I be mad enough at the Democrats for nominating a pro-war candidate to not vote (abstain) for president. It would be an extremely difficult thing for me to vote in favor of someone who supports something that I have been fighting against for 3 years.
sparrow said:
Posted by: ralpheh at November 12, 2005 10:24 PM
You both may have to decide if you want to take a chance on a Democratic Candidate or a Republican Candidate.
You may have to evaluate lots of issues and then find comfort in whereever your heart leads you.
But to abstain, as I told my brother, is to make a choice in itself.
Ira said:
it seems by all of the posts that I have read here tonight, that everyone is presuming that the war will still be front in center, the prime issue it is today, 3 years from now. I see policy issues changing day by day much less 1,090 days from today. Heck we could be in a stock market crash, a recession, another even more important Supreme Ct. vacancy, a pandemic,healthcare or pension crisis or a myriad of concerns we haven't even thought of tonight. yes we will have a presence in Iraq for a long time to come but to presume that the RNC will still want to have Iraq as a political issue during the next Presidential campaign is not realistic. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is so desperate to re-elect a Republican Congress that he announces victory and start removing some troops by next summer when the Congressional elections heat up. But in political terms things change constantly and American voters seem to have a very short attention span.
and Linda there are many southern moderates here who have similar opinions about the issues like the death penalty, but as you well know, Tim Kaine, sorry that is Governor Tim Kaine, a souther governor, was against the death penalty and seemed to handle that issue just fine by oddly enough emphasizing his strong Catholic religious beliefs which seemed to play very well. So as long as voters believe that our candidate has strong moral and religious beliefs, regardless of they agree with those beliefs, the candidate seems to do just fine. I strongly feel that JK needed to do a better job of expressing his Catholicism,even with those whacko priests in Colorado Springs attacking him.
That's my 2 cents on tonight's discussion.
By the way Linda if you are still out there, I heard John Edwards speak at my law school and even had the opportunity to speak to him briefly, and while I greatly admire him, his presentations came across a little flat to me, just a rehash of his '04 stump speech.
I thought you were a Wesley Clark supporter who incidentally was a big help in Kaine election, with fundraising and personal appearances.
Rove never thinks in terms of now. He usually has a fairly complex plan orchestrated years in advance, which is just plain scarey.
Of course they are in some trouble, from peddling the snake oil on Social Security, then the Katrina disaster being played out in every home in America for a week while people starved and drowned. And the indictments.
As Ira says, people have a short memory sometimes.
I hope people don't get lulled into complacency with the hopeful signs.
~ ~ * * ~ ~
Ira,
'06 is crucial. We have to win back those seats in Congress. However, the anti-war movement is also important in my opinion because when people see other people joining in to community to make a statement, it opens eyes, and also takes fear away from those who had seen but were too intimidated to do much about it. And, as we cause the focus to come on to the war, we are touching many fathers and mothers who hopefully
will not forget.
I don't know how we will do this, but maybe committees will be formed to work the anti-war movement, as well as the '06 races.
Or maybe we will have to multi-task.
There are certainly enough of us who want these thugs out that once organized, we should be able to cover several crucial areas of concern.
I personally don't think we can win without the rural vote after what I saw last November. And Rove is already working rural America by sending those emails to every church and it's members. The ones they can't reach through the emails they mail brochures and propaganda via snail mail. I have already received, this year, propaganda from Dobson via snail mail, as well as emails from Grassfire.org.
And you are probably right. They will probably declare some sort of "Victory" over in Iraq and start pulling some troops home next Spring.
We NEED those rural votes. Any idea how we can get to rural voters?
"I wonder if Miers was a Rovian ploy to placate the R.R. Bring her out, she's inexperienced, but, hey....she would probably vote to overturn R v. W.
I don't think the neocons want to ever overturn R v. W, because it is a powerful issue to keep the R.R. voting GOP."
Cyrano said:
I was wrong.
I wrote these words about my vote to authorize the Iraq war in a Washington Post op-ed piece and I want to share my views with you as well.
Almost three years ago, we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and to show that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the President -- and that I was being told by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: twisting intelligence to fit their pre-conceived views about Iraq's threat; failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it actually ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill that our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
The urgent question isn't how we got here, but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing American presence; building Iraq's capacity; and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections and a new government has been created, we should begin the redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq.
Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces. That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule outlining that as we certify that Iraqi troops are trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will withdraw.
Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. It's not just in America's security interest for Iraq to succeed, but the world's -- and the President needs to create a unified international front.
Too many mistakes have already been made to make this easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most importantly -- our troops who have died or been injured there and those who are fighting there today deserve nothing less.
America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war; and over 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
John Edwards
ralpheh said:
it seems by all of the posts that I have read here tonight, that everyone is presuming that the war will still be front in center, the prime issue it is today, 3 years from now. I see policy issues changing day by day much less 1,090 days from today. Heck we could be in a stock market crash, a recession, another even more important Supreme Ct. vacancy, a pandemic,healthcare or pension crisis or a myriad of concerns we haven't even thought of tonight. yes we will have a presence in Iraq for a long time to come but to presume that the RNC will still want to have Iraq as a political issue during the next Presidential campaign is not realistic. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is so desperate to re-elect a Republican Congress that he announces victory and start removing some troops by next summer when the Congressional elections heat up. But in political terms things change constantly and American voters seem to have a very short attention span.
and
fundraising and personal appearances.
Posted by: Ira at November 13, 2005 12:47 AM
The Iraq war/situation and the problem of the Middle East will almost surely be as important (and as bad)in 2008 as it is today.
Here are two likely scenarios for 2008:
1) American troops are still in Iraq; the insurgency continues and lives are lost everyday; the United States is spending money and lives propping up a weak Iraqi government
2) Americans troops have left Iraq; Iraq is dividing along ethnic and religious lines; the country is unstable; neighbors such as Syria and Iraq are threatening to intervene in Iraq
The U.S. military is now planning to be in Iraq in multi-year increments - 5 years, 10 years etc..
The billions of dollars will have been spent in Iraq and our nation's fiscal health will be in a deep hole with entitlement programs - Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid - putting more strain on the budget.
As I learned in economics, a nation must chose, to a large extent, between spending on guns or butter. Right now we are spending lots of money on guns and there is little left-over for butter.
I heard from Truth Shall Prevail. Truth has not been online due to having no internet service for the last week.
Truth wants the truth to be known. She is going stir crazy without getting the real news from us and she misses us here too.
Thanks - I was wondering!
http://www.target.com/exec/obidos/handle-generic-form/${0}/601-2685296-0544150?action=next%2dpage&target=help%2fself%2dservice%2demail%2dform%2ehtml&display=tsq&browse=1041342&method=GET%c2%96TargetStoreQuestions
if you want to email Target about pharmacists refusing to fill legal prescriptions
From MHK..(next thread)
Email Target at:
http://tinyurl.com/bauoe
And ralpheh- by saying I'm not anti DLC, I suppose I should be a bit more honest with you.
I made a donation to them, just this week.
So, I'm pro DLC.
But I still reserve the right to detest Joe Lieberman, who shouldn't be allowed in any organization with the word Democrat in it, and to not trust Joe Biden. Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill, unless I'm wrong.
Just because they're members of the club doesn't make the whole club bad.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 11, 2005 10:01 PM
The last time I was at the DLC website, several weeks ago now, I looked up their "policy/position" on the Iraq war. There was no subheading for "Iraq Policy" - I had to wade through what they called "National Security and Foreign Policy". After wading through this material, I could not find the word "Iraq" or "war" or "occupation". They completely ignored the biggest issue facing the country!!
This is why I cannot support Hillary or Biden if they are nominated in 2008.
mkh...
Has this information been posted at other blogs too?
Including the phone number from yesterday?
Looks like Rover isn't out of the woods yet and won't be for anytime soon...So, any bets on just how big a rat Scooter is? Will he save some of his own hide and squeal on Rover or will he protect Rover at any cost? The article quoted here has a very good summary of the whole case and especially the Scooter-Rover connection.
(BTW, I hope Patrick Fitzgerald is nominated for Time's Man of the Year for 2005.)
Libby Testimony Is Key To Rove Inquiry
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delayed a decision on whether to seek criminal charges against Karl Rove in large part because he wants to determine whether Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, can provide information on Rove's role in the CIA leak case, according to attorneys involved in the investigation.
--snip--
The ongoing investigation means that Rove's legal status is likely to remain up in the air until the final disposition of Libby's case. That could be two years from now, or even longer. Rove's predicament contradicts recent news accounts indicating that Fitzgerald will conclude his probe of Rove in the near future.
--snip--
If Libby strikes a plea bargain, he would likely agree as part of any deal to provide information to prosecutors that had some bearing on Rove and other Bush administration officials, according to attorneys involved in the case. Even if no plea bargain occurs, a federal grand jury could compel Libby to testify about others under a grant of immunity. If he still refused to testify, Libby could then be jailed for civil contempt, or charged anew with criminal contempt or obstruction of justice.
--snip--
The indictment states that on July 10 or 11, "Libby spoke to a senior official in the White House (Official A) who advised Libby of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with ... Novak, in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife."
Attorneys involved in the CIA leak case confirm that Official A refers to Rove.
Also central to Fitzgerald's investigation are allegations that Rove purposely misled the FBI in October 2003 and the federal grand jury in February 2004, when he failed to disclose a July 11, 2003, conversation with Cooper about Plame, according to sources knowledgeable about the matter.
--snip--
So, is Fitzgerald's slow pace in completing his investigation of Rove an instance of prosecutorial zealousness, and is Rove being singled out because of his power and status?
Katy Harriger, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University, who has authored two books on special prosecutors, says that Fitzgerald's open-ended case on Rove is no different from what any ordinary prosecutor would do with any defendant. "It is fairly routine that you are not going to be clearing someone until you hear from a central witness, even if it means [that it takes you] two years to clear your other case before you hear them."
--snip--
Stan Brand, a Washington defense lawyer who has specialized in representing clients in high-profile political cases and before special prosecutors, says that "while it is not a good thing for anyone to be hung out to dry during a criminal investigation," Fitzgerald has shown himself to be a prosecutor who "has come to the case with no predisposition and no political bent."
Regarding Rove, Brand said: "He is not being treated differently than anyone else. If you don't like the way the system works in this instance, you don't like it, period."
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1112nj_waas.htm
YA THINK?!?!?!?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll
Poll: Most Americans Say Bush Not Honest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any damned fool with a modicum of ability to observe and hear knew The Cretin was lying in the 2000 debates when he said he wouldn't do any nation building. I knew he was lying then, and I know he's been lying to the people of this nation (and the world) on a daily basis... every time he opens his mouth, in fact.
And here (below) is yet another speech with a paragraph designed to keep sheeples silent and not question his reasons for attacking Iraq....
No one's rewriting history. The Cretin's reasons for starting a war based on LIES is being questioned, and always has been questioned by anyone with half a working cell in their brain....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_13
Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Nov 11, 2005
President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they're undercutting America's forces on the front lines.
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.
Ralpheh-
I have been a big Kerry backer for many years, though didn't agree with him (or anyone) every single thing.. I can now see that you really do your research & your voice is needed for conscience, to temper with pragmatism for winning. We need the moral value of knowing we're striving for peace, not "exporting democracy" or some other ridiculous but superficially lofy-sounding ideal. The Republicans are out-donating the Democrats. We need to help Howard Dean at the DNC to attract large donors on one hand and keep the new small donors (who tend to be very progressive) on the other. We are brainstorming this here in Seattle.
NonnyO
What is Bush talking about - rewriting the history of how the war began - Richard C Clarke worked for 4 administrations and told us already. It's the Bushites who are revisionistts. Their strategy would only have potential if the mass of people paid more attention to history and I don't think they do. Unless gas is cheaper and people are getting raises, many will be skeptial. & it's too late for the war to have a fast food ending (immediate gratification of "mission accomplished").
Watch Bush head to Asia. Already Westerners have to watch out if staying in posh hotels & I can just see him in Mongolia, heavily jet-lagged and politely trying to choke down yak butter tea or something.
Just talked to a young friend in Paris for a long time. He said that it's similar to US in that some people in the country where there are no terrorists and not likely to be any spend about 40% of their income on their car - then they support the rightwing because their car could get burnt up. It reminded both of us of people in rural North Dakota or Kansas, etc. who vote for the rightwing when their own leading edge is keeping us safe from terror. Do people THINK?!
Hi Y'all.
It's been a long week.
My ISP had a bunch of cable fry on them a week ago, then I needed a new modem because it fried, then when they got those two problems resolved, they had other provisioning problems.
They just put this cable in in August, and many of the techs here are very new at this. It has been a learning experience for them.
I called Suz to see what the latest news was politically a couple of times.
Back in the Saddle Again
I'm back in the saddle again
Out where a friend is a friend
Where the prairie dogs feed
And where "weed" IS just a weed
Back in the saddle again
Ridin' the prairie once more
Totin' my old .44
Where I read and learn at night
To distinguish wrong from right
Back in the saddle again
What is Bush talking about - rewriting the history of how the war began - Richard C Clarke worked for 4 administrations and told us already. It's the Bushites who are revisionistts.
Do people THINK?!
Posted by: DiAnne at November 12, 2005 02:59 PM
Yes, DiAnne, I did know it's the Bushites who are the "revisionists"... read LIARS.... And, he's still trying to keep the sheeples from speaking out against him. (Sounds like a speech written by Karen Hughes, doesn't it???)
The part that gets to me is that people do NOT think, and some people still believe The Cretin and his White House.... I don't get it....! Or else more people know he lied than the pollsters are telling us and the pollsters are the ones giving us all the false impression that he still even has any support. I don't know why the people who still support him aren't reported in something like a five or ten percent category....
IMHO, the sheeples who are so easily led astrary just aren't paying attention.... And, no, I do not believe for one second that the majority of people are thinking at all. If they were, the Selection of 2000 would never have happened, nor would the stolen election of 2004....
We will have eight bad years to atone for, even if we did not support this administration in any way, shape, or form, and have been revolted and disgusted all along with their behavior toward our fellow human beings regarding war and torture. Words have not yet been invented to explain how sick at heart I feel whenever I read about The Cretin's war and his (and his administration's) policy of torture. I don't have words to express how adamantly opposed I am to those views held by The Cretin and his administration. That's the worst of it, and then the other horrors he and his administration have visited on this country with the corporate cronies only getting richer while the poor are getting poorer are right behind that....
I take for granted that every time The Cretin opens his mouth he will lie, and the next time he opens his mouth he will lie to justify his original lies.... That's a given....
And that's why god invented the Mute button on the remote... and if one's eyes can't stand the lying body language, one can change channels or hit the Off button.... and go read a good book, or make art, or surf the net, or....
One bit of good news to momentarily forget the horrors of The Cretin's administration: The little girl panda at the San Diego Zoo is named Su Lin... "A Little Bit of Something Very Cute."
ralpheh- I understand that I'm a bit more moderate than a lot of people on here. I wouldn't have picked Kerry to be our candidate at all in 2004, but I did support him in every way I could. I guess it depends on your meaning of "support." I do hope you don't mean you wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Biden in '08.
I've said I won't "support" any Democratic candidate who doesn't admit this war was a mistake. That includes Hillary and whoever else might run, but I'll certainly vote for them. I just know that I'll have a lot of trouble being as active as I was for Kerry in 2004- a lot of us worked our butts out here in the red states and felt that the campaign, and even the candidate, let us down in many ways. I know Kerry did his best, but there were just statements that he made during the campaign that made no sense to the people in my part of the country, and it's very hard to work around those things and find any kind of success. I don't think that by 2008 any of our Democratic candidates will be saying anything OTHER than this war was a disastrous mistake, and if they do, I'll go vote, but I'll stay home for the campaigning.
As far as me giving to the DLC goes- I'm a Clintonite, through and through, and one reason I supported Wes Clark was because he was Bill Clinton's candidate last year. There were rumors to that effect, and they were right. At least, judging from the fact that the jet he flew into Pensacola on was owned by none other than our former president. Also, his advance team was made up of nearly all former Clinton aides. It was pretty obvious at the time who Bill Clinton backed.
I know the DLC has fallen out of favor over the last couple of years, but IMHO, and probably in the opinions of only a very few others on here, a moderate course is the only one that I think will lead us into the White House again. I thought that last year when I chose the candidate that I originally supported, and I think the election basically proved my point. I know a lot of people disagree, and they have a right to. Most of them don't live in the reddest area of a red state though.
And being moderate doesn't mean supporting this war. I detest this war, but that doesn't make me a liberal. Centrists really do have opinions- we're not just sitting on the fence. We just don't take a singular view towards every issue. We can be pretty much against war, as I am, and pro death penalty at the same time.
I know that's infuriating, but it's just the very confused and contrary way our minds work :-)
I really do hope you'd still vote for Hillary though. Even if you couldn't campaign for her.
Biden is a creepy liar, but I'd even vote for him over a Repug. I still want an Edwarsds/Schumer ticket though.
Sometimes we can't have the perfect so we settle for the good. I'd rather compromise than lose out altogether. And we REALLY lost a lot the last two elections. I don't know if this country can ever be the same again.
Woooo hooo...People are seeing the LIGHT!!!
Bush's poll numbers are down even more.
Newsweek poll: Just 36 percent of Americans support Bush.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Newsweek_poll_Just_32_percent_of_1112.html
Frank Rich on the 'flagrant embrace of torture'
In his Sunday column in the New York Times, Frank Rich excoriates the Bush Administration's "prewar propaganda blitzkrieg" and it's policies on torture, RAW STORY has learned.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Frank_Rich_We_do_not_torture_1112.html
Carter critisizes Bush. (A rare thing to have TWO Presidents critisizing policy of the current pResident!(Actually three...I believe I heard even dear old dad isn't too pleased with sonny-boy!)
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBGV8WEYFE.html
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 05:52 PM
Linda,
We have a full spectrum of people over here--moderate Republicans to Left Dems.
You're not the only moderate by a long shot, but I believe the purpose of the DCP is to learn about many things--government, policy, issues, democracy--and then for all of us to teach others as well.
I think we have to find a way to unite all of our various ideas, teach compromise, or at least teach how to unite instead of divide.
In a way, we're learning to become activists but also diplomats.
How am I doing so far?
(ok...ok..I probably shouldn't have asked!)
sparrow- I know there are other moderates on here- I was just replying to what ralpheh said about the fact that I donate to the DLC on occasion.
You're doing fine so far.. :-)
I wasn't angry, just replying.
I don't even think ralpheh was angry- he was just saying that the DLC doesn't have any set policy about the war. I think that's because its members have a lot of different opinions on the war, but they share the one trait of being moderate to progressive Democrats.
I can support pretty much any Democrat my party nominates, with only a few exceptions. (joe lieberman, joe lieberman, and oh, did I mention Joe Lieberman). Who is a toad and a closet Republican.
Hope your Saturday is going well......
Don't know if this made it to the blog yet, but here goes:
GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could ³validate² the President¹s war on terror and allow Bush to ³unite the country² in a ³time of national shock and sorrow.²The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it¹s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are ³blue sky thinking² that often occurs in political planning sessions.
³The President¹s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,² admits one aide. ³Americans band together at a time of crisis.²
Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.
³We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,² says a longtime GOP strategist. ³That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.²
The memo outlines other scenarios, including:
--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);
--A drastic turnaround in the economy;
--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.
GOP memos no longer talk of ³victory² in Iraq but use the term ³successful resolution.²
³A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,² says one insider.
The memo circulates as Tuesday¹s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.
³This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,² grumbles one Bush administration aide. ³Everybody¹s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.²
Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.
³Cooler heads tried to prevail,² one aide says. ³Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.²
Bush didn¹t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President¹s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday. Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.
The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in
California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.
³In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I¹ve never seen such a freefall in public support,² admits one GOP pollster. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message any message that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
³We¹ve made our bed with these people,² admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. ³Now it¹s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.²
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
Phew!!!
Linda my Saturday is much better than my Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
Thank you for asking!
Posted by: Fe at November 12, 2005 07:08 PM
Re: The GOP Memo on ideas to reverse the downward spiral the GOP is having.
I wonder who is "leaking" this stuff.
Supposedly, someone in the GOP is leaking about a divide in the White House between the Cheney and Bush camps, among other things.
I find it hard to believe this White House would allow anyone to leak anything they didn't want everyone to hear.
I am suspicious of Rove regarding the recent "leaks".
³In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I¹ve never seen such a freefall in public support,² admits one GOP pollster. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message any message that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
³We¹ve made our bed with these people,² admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. ³Now it¹s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.²
Posted by: Fe at November 12, 2005 07:08 PM
Last fall, I noticed that the rural areas of each state highly contributed very heavily to the success or failure rate of the candidates and issues.
I recounted votes last fall in several states according to the numbers CNN had on each precinct, and was quite surprised to see GOP wins, especially since it looked pretty good for the Dems until I painstakingly went through several states and added all the rural votes by precinct.
Could this be a ploy by Repugs to give Dems a sense of false security?
The urban areas as we know are more inclined to be more progressive and vote Dem, but the collective votes of thousands of rural American voters took the right to sucess, precinct by precinct.
I wonder if Rove is spinning this because everything I have read recently states the decline in the polls for Bush are not due to his base, but rather due to the fact that the Independents and Moderates are swinging left right now.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 12, 2005 08:14 PM
Welcome back to cyberspace.
Everyone on board has missed you.
Last fall, I noticed that the rural areas of each state highly contributed very heavily to the success or failure rate of the candidates and issues.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 12, 2005 08:34 PM
make that:
of each state contributed very heavily to the success or failure rate of the candidates and issues.
(redundant)
Thank you, Sparrow.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
I did think you sounded angry. But I'm glad to hear that your not.
Personally, I don't really know much about the DLC and really don't want to learn.
I look at it like this: it's a label. Labels are bad. It's like a kid at school being labeled as ld and it follows him for the rest of his life. He may be ld in reading but be an incredible genius in Math and science.
The DLC is a group of people who have some things they agree with each other about and other things they don't.
The Left D, may have elements of DLC or the Greens.
AND believe it or not, many of us still have Republican (of old) values...like fiscal responsibility, accountablility in government, etc...
So today...let's rip off those labels, start a fire, and burn them to ashes.
We're not moderate, lefties, greenies, socialists, commies or whatever label people want to use to make us different. Instead, we are all here together fighting, fighting hard, to take back our democracy from a group of amoral and immoral thugs.
We're all on the same team.
Truth:
I woukd take anything out of the WH with a grain pf salt. Wait, a warehouse of salt. But that would be about EVERYTHING, not just this memo or while they're on the losing side right now.
I think like you do, and believe that this may be a way to assess what the oppos has in terms of strength going in to mid-terms. So keep nose to grindstone and don't give way one inch. It's not over yet by a long yard.
ralpheh- I understand that I'm a bit more moderate than a lot of people on here. I wouldn't have picked Kerry to be our candidate at all in 2004, but I did support him in every way I could. I guess it depends on your meaning of "support." I do hope you don't mean you wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Biden in '08.
I've said I won't "support" any Democratic candidate who doesn't admit this war was a mistake. That includes Hillary and whoever else might run, but I'll certainly vote for them. I just know that I'll have a lot of trouble being as active as I was for Kerry in 2004- a lot of us worked our butts out here in the red states and felt that the campaign, and even the candidate, let us down in many ways.
Hope your Saturday is going well......
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 12, 2005 06:44 PM
If a pro-war candidate is nominated by the Democrats in 2008 (I do not care if it is HIllary, or Biden, or Schumer or Lieberman etc....) I will not volunteer for him/her; I will not contribute money to him/her (I will give my money and time to anti-war Democrats running for Congress). The question for me is would I be mad enough at the Democrats for nominating a pro-war candidate to not vote (abstain) for president. It would be an extremely difficult thing for me to vote in favor of someone who supports something that I have been fighting against for 3 years.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 12, 2005 10:24 PM
You both may have to decide if you want to take a chance on a Democratic Candidate or a Republican Candidate.
You may have to evaluate lots of issues and then find comfort in whereever your heart leads you.
But to abstain, as I told my brother, is to make a choice in itself.
it seems by all of the posts that I have read here tonight, that everyone is presuming that the war will still be front in center, the prime issue it is today, 3 years from now. I see policy issues changing day by day much less 1,090 days from today. Heck we could be in a stock market crash, a recession, another even more important Supreme Ct. vacancy, a pandemic,healthcare or pension crisis or a myriad of concerns we haven't even thought of tonight. yes we will have a presence in Iraq for a long time to come but to presume that the RNC will still want to have Iraq as a political issue during the next Presidential campaign is not realistic. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is so desperate to re-elect a Republican Congress that he announces victory and start removing some troops by next summer when the Congressional elections heat up. But in political terms things change constantly and American voters seem to have a very short attention span.
and Linda there are many southern moderates here who have similar opinions about the issues like the death penalty, but as you well know, Tim Kaine, sorry that is Governor Tim Kaine, a souther governor, was against the death penalty and seemed to handle that issue just fine by oddly enough emphasizing his strong Catholic religious beliefs which seemed to play very well. So as long as voters believe that our candidate has strong moral and religious beliefs, regardless of they agree with those beliefs, the candidate seems to do just fine. I strongly feel that JK needed to do a better job of expressing his Catholicism,even with those whacko priests in Colorado Springs attacking him.
That's my 2 cents on tonight's discussion.
By the way Linda if you are still out there, I heard John Edwards speak at my law school and even had the opportunity to speak to him briefly, and while I greatly admire him, his presentations came across a little flat to me, just a rehash of his '04 stump speech.
I thought you were a Wesley Clark supporter who incidentally was a big help in Kaine election, with fundraising and personal appearances.
Posted by: Fe at November 12, 2005 08:57 PM
Fe, you are so correct.
Rove never thinks in terms of now. He usually has a fairly complex plan orchestrated years in advance, which is just plain scarey.
Of course they are in some trouble, from peddling the snake oil on Social Security, then the Katrina disaster being played out in every home in America for a week while people starved and drowned. And the indictments.
As Ira says, people have a short memory sometimes.
I hope people don't get lulled into complacency with the hopeful signs.
~ ~ * * ~ ~
Ira,
'06 is crucial. We have to win back those seats in Congress. However, the anti-war movement is also important in my opinion because when people see other people joining in to community to make a statement, it opens eyes, and also takes fear away from those who had seen but were too intimidated to do much about it. And, as we cause the focus to come on to the war, we are touching many fathers and mothers who hopefully
will not forget.
I don't know how we will do this, but maybe committees will be formed to work the anti-war movement, as well as the '06 races.
Or maybe we will have to multi-task.
There are certainly enough of us who want these thugs out that once organized, we should be able to cover several crucial areas of concern.
I personally don't think we can win without the rural vote after what I saw last November. And Rove is already working rural America by sending those emails to every church and it's members. The ones they can't reach through the emails they mail brochures and propaganda via snail mail. I have already received, this year, propaganda from Dobson via snail mail, as well as emails from Grassfire.org.
And you are probably right. They will probably declare some sort of "Victory" over in Iraq and start pulling some troops home next Spring.
We NEED those rural votes. Any idea how we can get to rural voters?
I received an email last week that said:
"I wonder if Miers was a Rovian ploy to placate the R.R. Bring her out, she's inexperienced, but, hey....she would probably vote to overturn R v. W.
I don't think the neocons want to ever overturn R v. W, because it is a powerful issue to keep the R.R. voting GOP."
I was wrong.
I wrote these words about my vote to authorize the Iraq war in a Washington Post op-ed piece and I want to share my views with you as well.
Almost three years ago, we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and to show that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the President -- and that I was being told by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: twisting intelligence to fit their pre-conceived views about Iraq's threat; failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it actually ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill that our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
The urgent question isn't how we got here, but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing American presence; building Iraq's capacity; and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections and a new government has been created, we should begin the redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq.
Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces. That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule outlining that as we certify that Iraqi troops are trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will withdraw.
Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. It's not just in America's security interest for Iraq to succeed, but the world's -- and the President needs to create a unified international front.
Too many mistakes have already been made to make this easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most importantly -- our troops who have died or been injured there and those who are fighting there today deserve nothing less.
America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war; and over 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
John Edwards
it seems by all of the posts that I have read here tonight, that everyone is presuming that the war will still be front in center, the prime issue it is today, 3 years from now. I see policy issues changing day by day much less 1,090 days from today. Heck we could be in a stock market crash, a recession, another even more important Supreme Ct. vacancy, a pandemic,healthcare or pension crisis or a myriad of concerns we haven't even thought of tonight. yes we will have a presence in Iraq for a long time to come but to presume that the RNC will still want to have Iraq as a political issue during the next Presidential campaign is not realistic. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is so desperate to re-elect a Republican Congress that he announces victory and start removing some troops by next summer when the Congressional elections heat up. But in political terms things change constantly and American voters seem to have a very short attention span.
and
fundraising and personal appearances.
Posted by: Ira at November 13, 2005 12:47 AM
The Iraq war/situation and the problem of the Middle East will almost surely be as important (and as bad)in 2008 as it is today.
Here are two likely scenarios for 2008:
1) American troops are still in Iraq; the insurgency continues and lives are lost everyday; the United States is spending money and lives propping up a weak Iraqi government
2) Americans troops have left Iraq; Iraq is dividing along ethnic and religious lines; the country is unstable; neighbors such as Syria and Iraq are threatening to intervene in Iraq
The U.S. military is now planning to be in Iraq in multi-year increments - 5 years, 10 years etc..
The billions of dollars will have been spent in Iraq and our nation's fiscal health will be in a deep hole with entitlement programs - Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid - putting more strain on the budget.
As I learned in economics, a nation must chose, to a large extent, between spending on guns or butter. Right now we are spending lots of money on guns and there is little left-over for butter.