(An interesting endorsement of Obama from one of our elected leaders. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
NOTE: Cross-posted from California Progress Report
On February 5th, California Democrats will play a major role in electing our next President.
For this good fortune, we face a difficult choice between talented and qualified candidates. While every one of them would be an improvement over George W. Bush, Sen. Barack Obama is Democrats’ best choice in 2008. See the extended.
Up until last week I supported former Sen. John Edwards, a passionate advocate for improving the lives of the millions of Americans living in poverty. Whatever happens this year, I hope John Edwards remains in public life – the country needs his important voice.
But I switched to Obama because he’s the only candidate who can awaken a significant number of Americans – the apathetic and disengaged – who have turned away from an unresponsive government and, in turn, our civic life.
Just look at Iowa, where younger voters and independents boosted Democratic Caucus turnout from 124,000 in 2004 to 239,000 in 2008. These voters, who do not normally participate in elections in these kinds of numbers, responded to Obama’s call for Americans to “build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”
With a resume unique among American presidential candidates (he was a paid community organizer before he was a politician), Obama recognizes that increasing public participation in our Democracy is the only way to build a consensus for change to take on our most intractable challenges – like passing universal health care and lessening America’s dependence on oil.
While Obama is a consensus-builder at heart, he’s not afraid to stand on principle, even when it’s not politically expedient – he was alone among the leading Democratic presidential candidates in coming out against the Iraq War from the start.
There’s much more to Barack Obama than I can write about here. Go to BarackObama.com to find out more about the man and how you can join his fight for change, either as a precinct captain in your neighborhood or even as a contributor to his campaign.
No matter which candidate wins the California primary, I believe that a Democrat will occupy the White House in 2009, riding a message of change and leadership to improve our country’s standing in the world.
In my view, only Barack Obama can turn that message into a mandate.
Darrell Steinberg represents Sacramento in the California State Senate
(I wish we’d hear from all of our challenger candidates more regularly. – promoted by David Dayen)
I am Steve Young, the Democrat challenging John Campbell [R, CA-48] the sixth richest member of congress. My challenge is truly a David vs. Goliath battle — and we know how that one turned out.
I am writing to ask for your help. Two reasons make the House race in California’s 48th district important:
We need a representative with the spine to vote his heart; and
As we have learned from sad experience, we don’t have the votes in Washington to pass necessary legislation.
We need a voice – reflective of our values – in the U.S. House in Washington.
I am Steve Young. I am not a career politician. I have never been on the public payroll. I do not answer to special interests, or PACS. I am definitely different from the traditional member of the House of Representatives who has “moved up” to avoid unemployment under term limits. I have run my own business, and have had to do without to make payroll. I understand the struggles Americans face today.
I will bring a different perspective to the U.S. House. To do that I need your help.
Your help is absolutely critical. I plan to launch ads in the media in February after super Tuesday. That is slightly over a month away. I can purchase 1 ad slot in my district for $25.
I have made advertisements to remind my district of the many examples of John Campbell’s hypocrisy including:
His attack on SCHIP “because it is a publicly funded health care system,” while he took publicly funded health care as a Congressman.
His justification for voting to cut veterans’ benefits because, “Veterans commit fraud.”
His support of waterboarding because it is, “a psychological interrogation technique that does not inflict physical pain or permanent damage.”
His vote to sustain Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 belying his many media pronouncements concerning his "dedication to the environment."
If he is reelected to the House, John Campbell will continue under the banner of “unburdening business” to rail against laws that give us clean drinking water, safe work places, and a retirement safety net.
Help me stop him by helping me get my message out next month.
John Campbell is the sixth richest member of Congress. He made millions as a car dealer. I will need to match him and the corporate interests that raised almost $2 million for his election. And that’s why I need your help.
The money battle will be like David and Goliath. We know who won that one.
Earlier I told you there were two reasons I needed to win this race. One was so that Californians will have an unfettered representative.
But the other reason is as important.
You see, House Democrats are struggling to pass necessary legislation. We need additional House votes to make a difference in Washington.
Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the following information for each individual whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle.
Contributions to Steve Young for Congress are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. The maximum allowable contribution is $2,300 per person to each of the primary and general elections. Couples may give up to $9,200 from common funds for the primary and general elections, but both names must be on the account. Contributions from corporations, foreign nationals, labor unions and federal government contractors are prohibited.
Charlie Brown is just an all around decent human being. It is a big reason why I and so many others have been trying so hard to get him into Congress. This email from one of his future constituents, Cody Conway, Sgt. USMC, is the perfect example of why people are so dedicated to Charlie.
The basic ask is to support getting his new awesome radio ad on the air. You can give on the Calitics ActBlue page.
Thanks to you, this past week, production was completed on Charlie Brown’s first radio spot of the 2008 campaign. Entitled “The War at Home,” the ad speaks for itself. And as an Iraq War veteran who is fighting each day to heal my scars and rebuild my life, it speaks for me.
Who Charlie Brown is, and the kind of leadership he represents for veterans like me isn’t about partisan politics. That’s why I want to tell you my story, and why I’m asking you to help keep this ad on the air by pledging your support today.
Growing up in Roseville, I had two dreams—to serve my country in the Marine Corps, and to become a mechanic-a lifelong passion that began from the moment I was old enough to hold a wrench. When I graduated High School in 2000, I got to live both, as a Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle Repairman.
My unit was part of the initial ground invasion into Iraq in March of 2003. I injured my right shoulder, leg and abdomen while removing an engine during a sandstorm outside Baghdad in April. Still able to hold a rifle with my left arm, I finished my tour of duty. But by the time I came home in July, the severity of my injuries left me unable to continue my career as a Marine or a mechanic. I was devastated.
More below the fold…
Several unsuccessful surgeries later, I was home with my fiancé and two foster children. I couldn’t work, and simply wasn’t the same person who deployed. My once happy and energetic demeanor had been replaced by what counselors call the “thousand yard stare.” And left to fight alone in a VA system that was unprepared for war, I was met not by solutions, but by resistance.
Two years later I was financially broke, physically and emotionally broken, and feeling increasingly abandoned by politicians that spend more money promising “support for our troops” than delivering on that promise. I found myself caught in a downward spiral–and eventually I hit rock bottom.
Ultimately, it was my friends, community based veterans groups, and fellow veterans like Charlie Brown who were willing to listen and really understand that helped get me back on track. In fact, the first few times I met with Charlie, I didn’t even know he was running for Congress. He was much more interested in my health and success than my vote.
Today, I am a college student, working towards a degree in Social Work and a career of helping veterans–because I know from experience that the war will not end when our troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s why I believe we need battle tested leaders like Charlie Brown in Congress—not just because he’s a fellow combat vet, or because he stands for the new direction America needs, but because he understands that patriotism—like support for our troops— is measured in action, not words.
I want to thank you again for giving me the chance to tell my story, and for standing for something much bigger than partisan politics in this campaign.
Please have a safe, happy holiday season.
Semper Fidelis,
Cody Conway, Sgt. USMC
Iraq War Veteran
P.S. Please help keep this ad on the air by contributing what you can to Charlie Brown for Congress today. 5% of your donation will support organizations helping veterans and families in need.
Let me clear out my Inbox and set you on your weekend way:
• The Megan’s Law website apparently is being used as a hit list and may have led to at least one death. This is the downside of a “what about the children?” über alles mentality.
• I’m not entirely certain about this claim that state lawmakers could have solved the mortgage crisis back in 2001 by cracking down on predatory lending practices. It’s a boilerplate story, a typical “they bought off the politicians” frame. But the problem, as Paul Krugman notes today, is that home prices lowered, leading to negative equity for homeowners. Not sure what the lawmakers could have done about that. This is a national crisis that required federal action. And what action could be taken on the state level is in the purview of the Attorney General. Jerry Brown is investigating home loans from Countrywide Financial for improprieties, particularly forcing buyers with good credit into subprime mortgages.
• For all the talk about Steve Poizner, he is doing his job in suing Blue Shield for their loathsome practice of dropping patients retroactively after they seek coverage. Blue Shield’s response?
The state’s interpretation of laws governing policy cancellations “is simply wrong.”
Stupid state, not knowing their own laws as well as a private entity!
• Nancy Pelosi is under fire for saying that Republicans like this war. Juan Cole is right to slam her for assuming that Republicans would act in good faith and help to end the war after the 2006 elections. What Republican Party was she talking about?
• Anthony Wright has the new amendments released to the public on the new health care reform. I should have a lot more on this over the weekend.
• I know that I didn’t execute a House roundup in November, but honestly there wasn’t a whole lot going on in the races. So I postponed it and will have a December roundup in the next few days.
• And finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the California Democratic Party buying three grand in French wine from Fabian Nuñez, who’s now a wine salesman, I guess. I have to acknowledge Kevin Spillane (two Republicans in one day, I know) from the No on 93 campaign for the funny move of sending a bottle of Two Buck Chuck to Nuñez’ office. It is an award winner.
Rep. Jane Harman teamed up today with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) to editorialize in the Wall Street Journal on why Bush isn’t so badThe Limits of Intelligence. Leaving aside the hilarious range of jokes afforded by the title, it’s a nearly letter-perfect exculpation for the Bush Administration. To hear Reps. Harman and Hoekstra tell it, the information produced from the Intelligence community is inherently flawed and suspect. As a result, any conclusion could be right or wrong at any given point and assigning a value judgment is just silly:
Still, intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science. The complete reversal from the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program to the latest NIE serves as its own caution in this regard. The information we receive from the intelligence community is but one piece of the puzzle in a rapidly changing world. It is not a substitute for policy, and the challenge for policy makers is to use good intelligence wisely to fashion good policy.
Or in other words, sure it looks like Harman, Hoekstra and the President totally dropped the ball on this over the course of three full years of Iran-focused hawkish rhetoric that apparently had no basis in reality, but that’s just how it works. And now that it’s been completely disproven, rather than admit an error, we’re simply going to blame the evidence. It’s been said that a good craftsman never blames his tools, and this may be the best demonstration in quite some time. Caught with their pants down the first time, it turns out that the assessment has always been correct no matter what the actual research or evidence might say, and we’re all best served just ignoring the inconvenient evidence and running with the stuff that we like. I liked this outlook best when it was justifying the invasion of Iraq, but I guess the classics never really die.
After her primary challenge last year, I was hopeful that Harman’s hawkish tendencies would soften. And in many ways, we’ve gotten that. Despite protestations that “Jane Harman hasn’t changed” since declaring herself “The Best Republican in the Democratic Party,” her votes on the war have gotten better- in fits and starts- over the past year. But lately she’s been trying to play thought police and now trying to justify a belligerent stance on Iran by legitimizing the same insanity that got us into Iraq. In 2002, the selective application of intelligence and deliberate misinformation to support a pre-established policy goal went on behind closed doors and, eventually, really pissed people off. Oh, and it also needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, bankrupted the country, further destabilized the Middle East and destroyed the nation’s international credibility. But this time we’re going to tell you to your face that we’re feeding a predetermined policy and tell you that it’s the only reasonable way to decide anything. Only the crazy irrational fringe would be swayed by actual evidence.
Perhaps the saddest part is that this whole article goes beyond political outrage and comes off as Rep. Harman’s “I drive a Dodge Stratus!” moment. She got passed over to Chair the House Intelligence Committee after Democrats retook the House, getting the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence instead. This sure does come off as a half-bitter, half-desperate attempt to reclaim relevance by grabbing a headline. Maybe her tendency to undermine the party in support of hawking an antagonistic foreign policy is why Rep. Silvestre Reyes is chairing the Intelligence Committee today. I’m just speculating there of course, but it’s tough to come up with a positive reading of this editorial, particularly when it finally boils down to “The government is telling you Iran is dangerous even though the government has established that Iran is not dangerous”:
Though the new NIE may be taken as positive news, Iran clearly remains dangerous. The combination of international pressure, economic sanctions and the presence of U.S. troops on Iran’s borders may have indeed convinced Tehran to abandon its nuclear-weapons program, as the NIE states with “high confidence.” Nevertheless, Congress must engage in vigorous oversight — to challenge those who do intelligence work, and to make site visits to see for ourselves.
This line of crap flew in 2002 and 2003 because Democrats like Jane Harman pushed it and there wasn’t a clear and recent debacle to prove how wrong-headed it was to its core. There’s no excuse now.
Long before it was “popular”, John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)
Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP’s fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War — NOT Repeat them in Iran!
Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy “reframing” the Global War on Terror, calling it “a ‘bumper sticker’ slogan Bush had used to justify everything …”
Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership — NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!
So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: “We’ve got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons …”
Even though Bush knew of the NIE Report Conclusions, as early as August this year:
At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
In spite of knowing there was No imminent threat of Nukes from Iran, Bush continued to trump up the neocon agenda, of looking under chairs and in closets for the next generation of WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Delusion)!
Indeed as recently as mid Oct, Bush was raising the spectre of World War III:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.
More “bumper sticker” sloganeering — no doubt! Thanks goodness for the voices of reason and sanity within the NIE, for deciding to go public, with there previously internal Report. True Patriots, I’d say, inside government, taking a stand against — more Neocon manipulation of the American People! Bravo!
So what were the Conclusions of the sea-change Report from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)?
November 2007
National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
Key Judgments
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.
…
– We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.
– We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
– We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
– Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
…
We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
– We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
So what are the implications for the Bush Agenda, and for those Presidential hopefuls, who want to pick up where Bush left off? NPR has a few thoughts on the implications this NIE news:
npr
NIE Report May Block Military Force Against Iran
by Mike Shuster
Morning Edition, December 5, 2007 – The emergence of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is presenting a major challenge to the policies of the Bush administration.
The report’s primary conclusion – that Iran halted a secret nuclear weapons program four years ago – appears to raise barriers to the use of military force against Iran and raise questions about whether economic sanctions are even justified.
…
President Defends Iran Policy
As justification for continuing his Iran policy, the president cited the NIE’s judgment that Iran chose to shut down its covert nuclear program in 2003 because of international pressure. The president said he wants that pressure to continue.
But in 2003, there were no economic sanctions against Iran. The U.S. refused to engage with Iran and dismissed the European decision to negotiate as fruitless.
…
Recently, the administration has been talking about even tougher sanctions, all the while suggesting the possibility of military attack.
But the first casualty of the NIE’s conclusions appears to be the military option. Many experts think it is impossible now. Bruce Riedel, who spent 30 years in the CIA, is among them. Riedel is a scholar with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
“There is no possible way that the United States could now use unilateral military force in the wake of this estimate. I don’t think the political calculus in this country or that of our allies abroad would tolerate it,” he said.
Interesting. And indeed hopeful. Maybe the world can begin to recover from the disastrous policy of endless preemptive war! Maybe America CAN return to our core values, that most of us believe, in afterall? Let hope so.
John Edwards has been calling for ENDING the policies of preemptive war and the application of “smart power”, as early as May of this year, and recently as November, in a Major Speech CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called “important”:
Here’s are some of the key points of this important Edwards Foreign Policy speech. Funny how today’s current events, are once again proving, “John Edwards IS Right, again!”
Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran
Nov 5, 2007
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
John Edwards:
This is a critical moment. As a nation, we stand today at a fork in the road with Iran. We have a real choice about the direction we’ll take. One path will replay the last seven years. It leads toward a dark future of belligerence, aggression, and war.
We need a new direction — one that will defuse the Iran threat, rather than aggravate it, one that will make America safer, not make the world more dangerous.
To understand exactly what the administration is trying to do with Iran, we need to go back to the beginning of the Bush Administration and look at how they took us to war with Iraq.
In the spring of 2002, the nation was struggling to recover from the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the same time, a group of Bush Administration neoconservatives, like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were strategizing for ways to start a war with Iraq. And suddenly, instead of reacting to 9/11 by working to protect America from terrorists, they saw a political opportunity to promote their right-wing ideological agenda and demonize anyone who disagreed with them.
Here’s what you have to know about these neocons — they think might makes right, every time. They believe in domination, not debate. They think America should use our military power to impose our will wherever and whenever we want. They use a sledgehammer when we should use a scalpel.
And here’s what you need to know about George Bush’s foreign policy — it’s written by these neocons, lock, stock, and barrel.
So after 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, “preventive war” — which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq.
Here’s what they mean by preventive war — if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don’t exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.
…
Harry Truman once said, “There is nothing more foolish than to think that war can be stopped by war. You don’t ‘prevent’ anything other than peace.”
That’s exactly right. Think about it — you don’t prevent wars by starting them. It would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous.
This George Bush policy instead is, almost literally, “shoot first, ask questions later.”
…
So let me be clear.
We should take Iran very seriously. And as commander-in-chief, if I ever learn that any nation is threatening an imminent attack, I will do what’s necessary to protect America.
But the one thing we absolutely should not be doing is launching another so-called “preventive war” with Iran. American and the world possess a powerful arsenal of diplomatic and economic options that have not yet been used, let alone exhausted.
…
We need, in short, a new strategy for Iran. My plan for Iran has five principles.
(1) End the doctrine of preventive war
First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs — the trash-heap of history. As he has done with so much else, Vice President Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine.
…
(2) Use smart sanctions against Iran
The second principle is to use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions to force Iran’s leaders to understand that they cannot continue to buck the will of the international community without destroying their ability to be the modern, advanced nation they so desperately want to become.
There are smart sanctions that will achieve results, and there are reckless sanctions that will backfire and play into a policy of military attacks. The Bush-Cheney sanctions Senator Clinton supports are the most radical, unprecedented, and belligerent sanctions possible. These reckless sanctions will escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran — the thing Bush and Cheney most want — and have other unintended consequences, such as higher oil prices.
…
(3) Offer carrot of possibility to re-join the world community
The third principle of my plan is to use “carrots” — diplomatic measures to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and re-join the world community. We should draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity and a regional fuel bank that Iran could use for peaceful purposes.
And we need to use the possibility of bringing Iran into multilateral economic organizations, including the WTO, as a carrot for change.
…
(4) Open Diplomatic Communication with Iran
The fourth principle of my policy is to reengage with Iran.
Even Republicans like Senator Hagel are now urging the president to open up communications with Iran. Communication is not a concession. After all, we talked to our great enemy, the Soviet Union, at the height of tensions during the Cold War.
…
But we must always negotiate from a position of strength.
…
(5) Get other Nations to apply pressure
And the fifth and final principle is to reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran.
We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3” — Great Britain, France, and Germany — Russia, China and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush Administration.
The strategy I’ve described to you today is the right way to keep America strong while keeping the peace.
It is the right way to force Iran to forgo its nuclear ambitions.
And it is the right way to restore America’s historic role as a leader of the world community — through a combination of strength, vision, and reengagement with the world.
America needs a president who can guide America through a dangerous world, with the wisdom of history by our side.
America has gone through similar challenges before.
Edwards’ smart, targeted, and visionary Foreign Policy are among the many reasons, he has my support, in his bid for President.
This new NIE Report should cause a few changes a few Cover Stories, both in the Administration and among some Presidential Hopefuls. The GOP Hopefuls were intending to run against the Bogey Man in Iran, against those “new” WMD — Weapons of Mass Delusion. And senator Clinton was planning on running by looking as tough as the GOP on Iran and Iraq, thus her support of the Kyle-Lieberman Vote.
NOW what will they do and say in light of the NIE Report?Anything?
Will any of them admit mistakes?
Will any of them take a more Humanitarian perspective, on Global problems as Edwards has long advocated for?
Or will Candidates do what they always do — and act like “Status Quo” Bureaucrats — ignoring the relevant Facts, and just continue with “Business as Usual”! … Pssst: Iran is NOT the “clear and present danger” you all were making it out to be!
We need to give 3rd world countries Hope — NOT Hate.America needs to pull the world’s citizens to our side of the fence — and NOT push them to the other side of the fence!
We need a Statesman like John Edwards, restoring the Moral Authority of America again, and not squandering it away with more preemptive misguided military intrusions!
Until America uses our power smartly, and stops all the bullying on the block, we will never be able to lead on other critical Global Issues like Global Warming, and Aids, and Tribal Conflicts, and poverty, and Hunger, and Thirst.
As a Country we ARE Better than what the World has seen lately — it’s high time we showed them, what most Americans are really about.
But that will take real progressive Leadership, who has those goals as the core of his agenda. IMO, that will take John Edwards at the helm.
On Saturday night, the San Diego State Aztecs hosted BYU to close out their regular football season. The game was the 3rd Annual Fleet Week-sponsored game, rescheduled from October 27 because of wildfires. The Fleet Week Foundation describes the game like this:
San Diego State University plays in this third annual Fleet Week Football Classic. Pregame and half-time shows will feature flyovers, parachutists, the Navy Region South West and SDSU bands, and a tribute to our wounded warriors at Balboa Hospital and Camp Pendleton as well as a tribute to members of the Legion of Valor.
The festivities have a wide range of public and private sponsors and it’s fun for the whole family right? Well, for at least the second year in a row (probably all three), the halftime show included an American flag being parachuted onto the field by members of a nation parachutist team…who happen to work for Blackwater and use parachutes emblazoned with the Blackwater logo.
Attached is the promotional video from last year’s (2006) Fleet Week. You can skip ahead to the 2:43 mark to see the Blackwater parachutist bringing in the giant American flag. If you want, you can also zip over to about the 3:09 mark to see the flag being dragged across the field during landing.
Fleet Week events, which go on year round, are to honor veterans. I’ve attended several of them and in my experience they’ve been good opportunities to pay tribute to veterans. So I have a hard time understanding how Blackwater fits into the puzzle. They consistently undermine the work being done by our armed forces around the world and especially in Iraq. It seems a particularly unfortunate inclusion in the festivities; made all the more uncomfortable given that the Blackwater recall election culminates on Tuesday (12/11).
I spoke with Steve Becvar of the SDSU Athletic Foundation, which was involved in planning the event. He explained that this is the third year that Blackwater-affiliated parachutists had played a role in the Fleet Week game. He emphasized that the school was not seeking to make any sort of political point, simply to partner with the Fleet Week Foundation to honor veterans.
But despite what may well have been the best intentions of event organizers, Blackwater has NO business honoring veterans. Blackwater profits from war and has a vested interest in prolonging any military struggle as long as it increases revenue. They are, in fact, naturally at odds with everything that our veterans should be honored for. They dishonor the flag and all the people who have bled for it whenever they or their representatives try to wrap themselves or the Blackwater logo in the American flag.
Blackwater knows what it does. And they know that they’re nothing next to the members of the actual military. Past that, they know that their only hope for success or survival is to blur the distinction between their criminal behavior and the valor of American servicemen and women. As the Potrero vote peaks, I hope San Diegans and Americans everywhere refuse to be tricked. Blackwater is hoping for honor by osmosis, but they end up literally and figuratively dragging the reputations of our soldiers through the mud.
If people wanted yet ANOTHER reason to resist at every opportunity Blackwater’s plans for a training facility in Potrero, here you go. They’ve taken advantage of SDSU and the Fleet Week Foundation to undermine what otherwise could have been a wonderful evening for veterans. But Blackwater doesn’t serve the United States or its ideals. Blackwater serves the dollar. And they have no business being remotely affiliated with veterans or current servicemembers.
So from San Diego to Blackwater: Get out and stay out.
According to public, campaign finacning regulations tommorow, November 29th, is the last day to receive matching funds through public financing.
So if you make a contribution tonight or tommorow to Dennis Kucinich, this means that your $50 contribution becomes a $100 contribution, $200 equals $400 … up to $250.
From the Kucinich campaign:
There are literally just weeks left before the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. We are proud of how far we’ve come, and the way the American people have embraced our message of “Strength through Peace.” According to recent polls we are in 4th place in New Hampshire. You could help put us over the top in New Hampshire by making a contribution today, and Double Your Impact, by taking advantage of the federal matching funds program.
Your support is essential as you can help us:
* Run advertisements and media
* Hire field coordinators and staff
* Provide housing for volunteers willing to come to New Hampshire to help get Dennis’ message out.
* Have all the resources we need to compete in New Hampshire and other early primary states
You know our campaign does not take contributions from corporations or from special interest groups. We have relied on people like you to help support our campaign. You have always come through during our end of quarter drives.
This is such an important opportunity for us and we cannot let it go by. Kucinich has disporpotiantely been supported by small donors and so the fact of doubling our contribution is something that we simply need to take advantage of. Even a small donation now becomes more significant. If you have already donated, I sincerely thank you. But, if you can make the extra committment for Mr. Kucinich’s leadership, it will go twice as far until tommorow.
Let us not forget what Kucinich’s leadership has been:
The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation
The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act
The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment
The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profithealth care system
The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO
Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party’s principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.
We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your contribution now.
In light of recent revelations about our role in Iraq, it’s time to consider the situation from the only candidate who has been right from the beginning.
Iraq is a disaster. We are now approaching 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead and updates of the Lancet study estimate that over a million Iraqis have died! This astounding figure was recently corrorborated in a British study this month. Security only declines day by day and dependable power, clean water and employment is unavailable. The U.S. spends about $200 million each day 70% of Americans want it to end.
Whether it’s the Baker-Hamilton report, or the GAO, it seems like everyone except the White House considers it a disaster. The consensus seems to be calling for a new approach, that will emphasize a political solution rather than a military one. However, the consensus is less clear as to what that solution may be. What is clear is that it is a colossal error, plagued by instability and massive violence, sending more and more human beings to their deaths every day. But, again, the nature of the violence and instability in Iraq is seen in different ways.
The White House, as well as most of the Republican candidates, see it largely as the work of global terrorists and Iraqi extremists attempting to drive out U.S. forces and the establish a National State of terror from which they can launch their aggresive war against the United States. “Al Qaeda” is thrown out a lot, even though the organization has a very small presence in the country, estimated at around 1,500 people total. They therefore, justify our continued presence there as crucial to national defense and winning the War on Terror.
Others, including many Democrats, consider the violence to be essentially a sectarian conflict or full blown civil war. Their soulution is drawing down combat forces, while continuing to leave somewhere between 60,000-90,000 troops in the region, apparently, to “fight terrorism”, prevent the possibility of the conflict escalating and spilling over into other countries, mass genocide, to train Iraqi forces, etc.
So, even though there’s a lot of arguing between the two groups both sides are committed to leaving a substantial U.S. troop presence in the country. That is, though they disagree on the amount of troops to keep there, they both agree that a military presence is key to securing the country. The people that favor the second view, including Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and talk so much about “ending the war”, are planning to leave a big military presence there. That’s what they call ending the war. But, what has to be realized is that this no longer a war. Outrageous amounts of men, women and children are dying every day, but this is not a war. This is an occupation.
That’s the word that neither side likes to use, but it’s the only word to describe it. The Republicans want to play offense in the occupation and the Democrats want to play defense in the occupation, but at the end of the day it’s still an occupation. It is an occupation based upon oil and privatization, an occupation based upon big business and reconstruction contracts. It is an occupation that is the cause of the violence and instability in Iraq and it is an occupation that we have to start looking at if we are going to stabalize Iraq and bring peace and security there, as well as in America.
In April, an ABC poll found that 97% of Sunnis and 83% of Shia opposed the presence of U.S. military. The same poll indicated that the entire infrastructure is growing steadily worse, as the availability of power, clean water and jobs are declining. Earlier this month a BBC poll found that 60% of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S. forces. The same poll found 70% of Iraqis saying that security has been steadily deteriorating, even with the surge in troops. As poll after poll shows these trends to be accurate, it starts to become obvious that keeping a U.S. military presence is entirely the wrong answer. Yet, these other candidates are all talking about continuing the occupation?
If we look at what’s going on in Iraq, we see massive corruption. We have these private companies, like Blackwater, carrying out security operations, huge corporations such as Halliburton, landing no bid and cost-plus contracts for reconstruction, all of these companies making Billions rebuilding Iraq as the Iraqis get little to nothing in money and only a declining standard of living from the “reconstruction”. And then there’s the Oil.
Iraq, having the third largest oil reserves in the world, is being pressured into passing a law that would in effect privatize over 80% of their Oil reserves to multinational companies, particularly U.S. oil companies. This “hydrocarbon law” not only gives the rights to U.S. and other foreign oil companies to do business in Iraq it enables them to have power in making the decisions over the contracts themselves. That is, a Federal Council is established to make decisions upon oil contract negotiations. However, representatives of these private oil companies will be on the board and thus approving their own contracts and terms. These are conditions of our occupation. These are the conditions of injustice, corruption and theft. These are the conditions that are enraging Iraqis and fueling the insurgency. These are the conditions of instability and violence that have, predictably enough, have lead to increased instability and violence.
What we need to do is create conditions to allow for security or security will never arise. We need to create the conditions of fairness, stability and reparations. We need to allow the Iraqi people to possess their own wealth in Oil, to create jobs and a more stable economy through national reconstruction efforts. We need to end this occupation and start thinking more practically by realizing that it is the occupation that is creating the violence and convene an international peace keeping force to help the country remian stable as it rebuilds. We need to create the conditions of peace in order to strengthen Iraq as well as our own security and standing in the world. We need to start working with others and take a more even handed approach, building relationships instead of enemies.
We need to elect the only candidate who understands these things and is willing to take action; the only candidate who has consistently spoken out against the war; the only candidate who has spoken out against the mass corruption and this most unjust oil law; the only candidate to tell the people the truth that we can end this war anytime we want end this war anytime we want; and the only candidate pursuing peace, peace that is practical and makes America stronger.
Dennis Kucinich plan to end the occupation-H.R. 1234:
(1) the United States should end the occupation of Iraq immediately, simultaneously with the introduction of a United Nations-led international peacekeeping force pursuant to an agreement with nations within the region and which incorporates the terms and conditions specified in section 1;
(2) the Department of Defense should use readily available existing funds to bring all United States troops and necessary equipment home while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force;
(3) the Department of Defense should order a simultaneous return of all United States contractors and subcontractors and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi Government;
(4) the United Nations should be encouraged to prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to be deployed to Iraq, replacing United States troops who then return home;
(5) the United States should provide funding for a United Nations peacekeeping mission, in which 50 percent of the peacekeeping troops should come from nations with large Muslim populations;
(6) the international security force, under United Nations direction, should remain in place until the Iraqi Government is capable of handling its own security;
(7) the Iraqi Government, with assistance from the United Nations, should immediately restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq and rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis;
(8) the Iraqi Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should set aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets and abandon all efforts, whether at the behest of the United States or otherwise, to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization;
(9) the Iraq Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq’s cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the United States invasion and occupation;
(10) the Iraqi Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should strive for economic sovereignty for Iraq by working with the world community to restore Iraq’s fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the International Monetary Funds or the World Bank;
(11) the United States should initiate a reparations program for the loss of Iraqi lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property, which should include an effort to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution; and
(12) the United States should refrain from any covert operations in Iraq and any attempts to destabilize the Iraqi Government.
(I was going to post my own Thanksgiving diary, but you know what? I’ll just thank Charlie and let him do the honors. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
(Cross Posted at Daily Kos)
As Jan and I reflect on the past year, we are humbled and profoundly grateful for the tremendous outpouring of support we’ve received from people across the 4th CD and the entire country. To all our friends (both new and old), volunteers, netroots activists, and contributors, we can never say thank you enough for believing in this campaign, and for fighting so hard to get our country back on track.
And together, we will. Onward to victory!
Beyond reflection, for most of us, Thanksgiving is a time to be with friends, family and neighbors—to catch up and even to reconnect with loved ones we don’t see that often.
For Jan and I, every moment together as a family is a cherished gift–never to be taken for granted. It’s an outlook that was shaped by the many holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, and even the birth of our daughter Stacey—spent apart while I was in the Air Force.
Generations before have made similar sacrifices, and this week, so will hundreds of thousands more.
Many of the families of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will go about this week like any other–glued to their computers and television sets for news, hoping for a phone call, sending letters and care packages, thumbing through the pages of family photo albums, and anxiously awaiting the safe return of their loved ones.
Like many of you, Jan and I know from experience that there are really no words to describe what these families–like their relatives in harms way–are going through, nor a comfort that can be found in words alone.
This is a fact that far too many politicians tend to forget. And that’s one of many reasons why we’ve decided to make this campaign about taking action–not just words.
Over veteran’s day, I wrote a little more on why action is needed, our plans, and the human impact our efforts could have in the coming year. I wanted to share it with all of you on another holiday where our thoughts turn to those who are serving and sacrificing in our name. Here are a few links where you can find it.
